security-intel-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (per-package findings and a summary) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but could be enhanced.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded main purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal output details ('per-package findings and a summary'). It does not specify format or limits, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'paste a package.json' for manifest, 'defaults to npm' for ecosystem). This clarifies usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 audits a dependency manifest for vulnerabilities, using specific verbs and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cve_lookup, but the purpose is distinct and clear.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions (paste package.json or pass dependencies array, ecosystem default) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cve_lookup or package_vulnerabilities.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. It states the output fields and source but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid or missing CVE), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The simple lookup nature is mostly transparent.

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 sentences long: the first clearly states the purpose and output, and the second credits the source. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool returns and its source. It could mention potential error cases or the expected input format more formally, but the schema already provides an example.

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% with the sole parameter 'cve_id' having an example in its description. The tool's description reinforces that the parameter is a CVE ID but adds no new detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('Look up a CVE by ID') and provides a specific list of returned fields (description, CVSS score, severity, etc.). It also mentions the data source (NVD NIST), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_dependencies and package_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?

The description implies when to use (to get a summary of a specific CVE) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives like package_vulnerabilities for broader vulnerability scanning.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (assumed), what happens on errors (e.g., package not found), or any rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of ecosystems. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at return format (e.g., list of CVE IDs). It lacks details on edge cases (no vulnerabilities found, invalid input), making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'version' has a description). The tool description adds the list of ecosystems but does not explain 'name' (package name) or 'ecosystem' (must be one of the listed). Fails to compensate for missing schema details.

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 'List known vulnerabilities for a software package' with specific verb and resource. Lists ecosystems, which differentiates from sibling tools like cve_lookup and audit_dependencies, but could be more explicit about when to use this over alternatives.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for querying package vulnerabilities by ecosystem, but does not mention exclusions like 'use audit_dependencies for project-level vulnerability scanning'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.