Scans the Nervous System source code itself before publishing. Catches hardcoded secrets, personal data, non-portable paths, and internal naming that should not ship to clients. RUN THIS BEFORE EVERY npm publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_file | No | Path to the NS source file to audit. Defaults to own index.js |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe operation. The description adds value by detailing what the scan catches, e.g., secrets and non-portable paths, which is beyond annotation coverage. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences plus an imperative, with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description does not explain return values. However, for a scan tool, the purpose and basic behavior are clear, and annotations cover safety. Slight omission, but still largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the source_file parameter well. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond stating the scan action. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning the Nervous System source code for hardcoded secrets, personal data, etc., before publishing. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the instruction 'RUN THIS BEFORE EVERY npm publish' reinforces its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an explicit directive to run before every npm publish, providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions, but the specificity makes usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
