Local code security scanner MCP

Inspect the registered static analysis commands in your client settings and test an audit across a designated test directory. Record the detected issue counts, rule identifiers, source file paths, and invocation arguments in your audit log. Choose an authorized repository root directory to establish inspection boundaries before starting local analysis.

What static analysis capabilities does an MCP security scanner provide?

Tool reference: vetcoders/mcp-server-semgrep. Evaluate the installation in a disposable environment, and record its owner and installed version rather than assuming a vendor-maintained integration:

• scan_directory: Scan a source directory.
• list_rules: List available rules and supported languages.
• analyze_results: Analyze scan results.
• create_rule: Create a custom rule.
• filter_results: Filter results.
• export_results: Export results.
• compare_results: Compare result sets.

Project README

Inspect the exposed tool identifiers within your client environment to verify support for directory scanning, rule listing, result analysis, rule creation, filtering, format export, and diff comparisons. Record the active tool names, supported analysis languages, and configured parameter schemas returned by your environment. Decide which static analysis tasks require dedicated protocol tool definitions based on your team code review workflow.

Execute a sample directory scan against a selected subfolder and export the resulting data structure to verify schema compatibility. Note the returned finding identifiers, file locations, line offsets, and rule severity classifications. Choose standard export formats and filtering rules that align with your team issue triage guidelines.

Run comparative analysis passes between two revisions of a designated source branch to observe how findings change between commits. Record the newly introduced finding keys, resolved finding keys, and unchanged finding keys across both revisions. Agree on a baseline comparison procedure to track code quality across iterative code edits.

How are workspace boundaries and execution permissions managed locally?

Review the configured workspace roots and test rejected paths using a disposable repository. Treat a documented access boundary as a configuration claim to verify, not a security certification.

Check the project’s installation instructions and the underlying Semgrep CLI configuration before use. Record the executable path and credential requirements for the version you install.

Inspect client configuration files to confirm that all relative and absolute path arguments map strictly inside your repository boundary. Record the configured workspace root paths, tool invocation flags, and file permission boundaries in your environment document. Decide which filesystem folders qualify as approved workspace roots before enabling file access for local automation tools.

Test command line execution in a standalone terminal window to verify existing credential status and license configuration. Note the observed authentication status, user profile identifier, and binary execution path reported by the terminal. Choose an authentication approach for underlying command line utilities that avoids interactive prompt interruptions during automated sessions.

Use a disposable repository with separate source and configuration directories to test directory handling. Record which files are scanned, skipped or reported as unreadable. Include a path outside the configured workspace and verify the observed rejection before granting access to sensitive repositories.

How do you integrate code security tools into editor environments?

Inspect configuration manifests in code editing environments to review server entry points, environment variables, and execution arguments. Record the server binary name, transport mode, process startup latency, and client connection status. Decide which developer interface configurations should host your static analysis server connections.

Provide instructions within your client workspace guidelines directing the assistant to run directory audits against modified files. Note the exact tool call sequence, target path arguments, and generated scan summaries in your prompt inspection log. Choose explicit prompting conventions that require your assistant to perform static checks before proposing source code modifications.

Choose a small synthetic change and inspect the assistant’s tool calls while reviewing it. Record the target path, tool identifier and returned result, then compare the assistant’s summary with the actual output. Require a clear explanation when a scan fails instead of accepting a claim that the code was checked.

How should you configure rule sets and scan criteria for local analysis?

Review project dependency manifests and internal architectural patterns to identify proprietary API usage patterns that require specific detection logic. Record the target syntax patterns, designated severity ratings, and rule identification tags in your local policy document. Decide whether internal security policies require custom rule definitions alongside shared community rule sets.

Test synthetic code samples containing intentional dummy patterns to verify that custom rules trigger appropriately during local runs. Note whether each test fixture produced an alert, remained unflagged, or encountered a rule parsing issue. Choose rule evaluation criteria that target credential exposure, unvalidated input handling, and improper access controls.

Test a proposed custom rule against both matching and non-matching synthetic examples. Record parsing errors, unexpected matches and missed cases alongside execution time. Keep the fixtures with the rule definition so future changes can be reviewed against the same expected behavior.

How do you evaluate and filter local scanner output?

Inspect scan findings to group alerts into security vulnerabilities, code maintenance notices, and framework deprecation warnings. Record the total finding counts categorized by severity category and affected component directory. Decide which severity classifications require immediate resolution before committing local code changes.

Apply filter arguments to your scan review tool to display only entries flagged with high or critical severity ratings. Note the remaining list of unresolved high-priority findings and the corresponding source line numbers. Choose filtering parameters to suppress low-priority style notices during vulnerability remediation sessions.

Prepare synthetic findings at different severities and apply the proposed filter. Compare the visible result with the complete original output to confirm what was hidden. Keep a written reason for each accepted exception and identify the person responsible for revisiting it.

How do local security audits compare with pipeline checks?

Compare the scanner CLI version and rule set specifications pinned in your CI configuration against those installed on your local machine. Record any version mismatches, missing rule packs, or divergent configuration flags between the two environments. Decide whether local workstation rule sets must mirror continuous integration build pipelines.

Inspect version-controlled repository settings to verify that exclusion paths and rule paths are tracked consistently. Note the synchronized configuration commit hash and the dates of the most recent rule pack updates. Choose a centralized configuration repository or shared manifest to maintain parity across developer machines.

When a pipeline scan reports an issue that a local scan omitted, compare the exact tool version, rule configuration and target files before changing the code. Reproduce the difference with a disposable fixture and record the cause. Update the shared setup instructions when the environments require different configuration.