Agent workflow

MCP code review server for secure coding agents.

Radar's MCP security scanner turns local security, dependency, and code-health findings into tools an agent can query before proposing a risky change.

Direct answer

MCP code review server for secure coding agents

Radar's MCP security scanner turns local security, dependency, and code-health findings into tools an agent can query before proposing a risky change.

What is the Code Radar MCP server for?

The MCP server gives coding agents structured scanner findings, explanations, and scoped repair prompts so generated fixes start from deterministic evidence.

Does MCP replace a local scan?

No. MCP exposes scanner-backed context to the agent, but the repository still needs local scans and rescans to prove the fix actually removed the finding.

Which agents fit this workflow?

Use the MCP workflow with Codex, Claude, Cursor, or another MCP client when generated changes need concrete findings instead of broad review prompts.

When should MCP become a paid workflow?

Paid MCP use is justified when teams repeatedly need full scans, report exports, agent repair context, and CI gates around generated code.

Intentanswer mcp code review, mcp security scanner, and coding agent security tool searches for Codex, Claude, and Cursor workflows
Proofscan_project_summary, explain_finding, fix_prompt, local MCP resources, finding detail, and rescan evidence
Next actionset up the local MCP server after a trusted scan, then keep GitHub Actions as the shared validation gate

Decision evidence

Proof path before agents act on findings.

MCP traffic converts when the page proves the agent receives deterministic scanner context, not vague security advice, and shows how the fix is validated.

mcp code review

Code Radar gives MCP clients structured security findings instead of broad review prompts.

Evidence to inspect
scan_project_summary, explain_finding, fix_prompt, severity, location, and rescan evidence.
Boundary
MCP exposes scanner-backed context; it does not replace the scan or the final CI gate.
Read MCP setup
coding agent security tool

Coding agents should repair from deterministic scanner evidence before they edit generated code again.

Evidence to inspect
Finding explanation, scoped fix prompt, local rescan, and GitHub Actions validation after the fix.
Boundary
Agents get context, but merge policy still needs human review or CI enforcement.
Secure coding agents
codex code review security

The commercial trigger is repeated agent review with full scans, exports, MCP context, hooks, or repository gates.

Evidence to inspect
Agent handoff prompt, report artifact, MCP tool output, and pull-request gate outcome.
Boundary
Do not sell MCP as magic AI review; it is a structured handoff from scanner evidence.
Compare plans

Agent workflow proof

Give coding agents structured findings, not vague review prompts.

Radar MCP turns local scan results into repeatable tools that coding agents can inspect, explain, and repair without inventing their own security review.

Toolsscan_project_summaryAgents get a project-level finding map before editing code.
Fix pathexplain_findingEach issue can be explained with file context and remediation steps.
ControlLocal serverKeep scan execution close to the repository and developer environment.
DemandAI code reviewCapture MCP and coding-agent security search demand early.
radar mcp start
radar prompt . --diff --copy
radar mcp doctor

This page targets MCP code review, MCP security scanner, MCP server for coding agents, and secure AI coding workflows.

Agent sales path

MCP should make coding agents safer, not just more connected.

Radar MCP converts findings into structured agent context so repair work starts from deterministic evidence instead of a broad prompt asking the model to review everything.

Good fit

  • Use when Codex, Claude, Cursor, or another MCP client needs real scan context.
  • Use when generated code should be repaired against concrete findings.
  • Use when local scans should remain close to the repository while agents query summaries.

Risk reversal

  • Do not hand agents vague instructions without scanner-backed evidence.
  • Do not let agent fixes bypass the same CI gate humans rely on.
  • Do not treat MCP as a replacement for local scan validation.
scan_project_summaryexplain_findingfix_promptLocal MCP server

Product evidence

Show agents deterministic security context.

See finding detail, fix guidance, local scan status, and copyable prompt context for agent review.

radar scan . --quick
Illustrative sample output

Live scan

License validation0.18s
Discover files412 files
Security rulesdone
Dependency auditdone
ReportsSARIF/JSON
CRITICAL
SQL injection risksrc/api/payments.ts:42
HIGH
Hardcoded secret.env.example:12
MEDIUM
Vulnerable dependencyCargo.lock

Selected finding

MessageWhyFixExport

Untrusted input reaches raw SQL construction.

Request data is interpolated into a query string before execution. This can expose customer data or mutate records.

How to fixValidate input and use parameterized queries before execution.

Example structure, not a customer result. Run the same check on your repository for real evidence.

Agent purchase trigger

Pay for MCP when agents need repeatable scanner context.

MCP traffic converts when the buyer can see the controlled loop: scan first, expose deterministic findings, scope the agent repair, rescan the result, and promote trusted checks to CI.

Create scanner context before the agent edits.

Run Radar first so the MCP server exposes real project findings instead of asking the coding agent to invent a review from scratch.

Do not connect agents before there is deterministic scan evidence to query.

mcp code reviewmcp security scannermcp code review server
Set up MCP

Use scoped repair prompts, not broad review prompts.

Give Codex, Claude, Cursor, or another MCP client the exact finding, file context, severity, and remediation path.

Do not let an agent fix unrelated code because the prompt was too broad.

codex code review securityclaude code security reviewsecure cursor code
Secure agents

Rescan agent changes before review.

Treat agent output like any other generated code: scan locally, inspect the report, then move trusted findings to CI.

Do not let agent fixes bypass the same review evidence that human changes need.

review ai generated codeai generated code security scannerai code review tool
Review AI code

Buy MCP workflow when the loop repeats.

A paid workflow is justified when agents repeatedly need scan summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and CI validation.

Do not pay for agent workflow before the first local scan proves useful findings.

mcp server for coding agentscoding agent security toolteam sast pricing
See agent plans

Useful tools, not a chat transcript

Agents can ask for project summary, top findings, quality gate status, and repair prompts tied to the last scan, making Radar a practical MCP server for coding agents and a coding agent security tool.

  • scan_project_summary
  • explain_finding
  • run_quality_gate
  • radar://report resources

One local install

Install MCP config for common clients from the CLI.

radar mcp install all
radar mcp doctor

MCP workflow FAQ

Use these answers to separate scanner evidence, agent repair context, rescan proof, and the final merge decision.

What is the Code Radar MCP server for?

The MCP server gives coding agents structured scanner findings, explanations, and scoped repair prompts so generated fixes start from deterministic evidence.

Does MCP replace a local scan?

No. MCP exposes scanner-backed context to the agent, but the repository still needs local scans and rescans to prove the fix actually removed the finding.

Which agents fit this workflow?

Use the MCP workflow with Codex, Claude, Cursor, or another MCP client when generated changes need concrete findings instead of broad review prompts.

When should MCP become a paid workflow?

Paid MCP use is justified when teams repeatedly need full scans, report exports, agent repair context, and CI gates around generated code.