Scans for security vulnerabilities - hardcoded passwords in HTML, exposed API keys, missing TLS, missing rate limiting, exposed bot tokens, and insecure file permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds value by listing specific vulnerability types being scanned, but does not mention potential side effects or required permissions.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently lists all relevant vulnerability types. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action 'Scans for security vulnerabilities'.
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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output (e.g., report of findings), but overall is sufficiently clear.
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?
No parameters are defined in the input schema (schema coverage 100% by default). Per the calibration rules, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add param info.
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?
Clearly states the tool scans for security vulnerabilities and enumerates specific types (e.g., hardcoded passwords, exposed API keys). Differentiates from sibling tools like bot_compliance_check by focusing on general security vulnerabilities.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only lists what it scans for, but does not provide context for selection among many audit-related sibling tools.
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.
