audit_checksLists the checks the free website audit runs, how many pages it scans and how long it takes. Use it to explain what an audit score covers.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "audit_checks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond them by disclosing what the response contains (the list of checks, page count scanned, runtime), which matters because no output schema exists; it does not mention whether results are static or vary by site.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste: the first states what is returned, the second states the reason to call it, and the purpose is front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and fully covered (empty) schema, the description carries the whole burden of explaining the payload, and it names the three things returned. A slightly fuller account of the response (e.g., whether check descriptions or limits are included) would make it 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is high and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly presents this as a no-argument list operation, but adds no parameter-level meaning because none exists.
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 uses a specific verb ("Lists") with a specific resource ("the checks the free website audit runs") and adds the scope of the listing (pages scanned, duration). It is clearly different from the sibling audit_website, though it never names that sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
"Use it to explain what an audit score covers" gives a concrete use case and implies this is a pre-audit/informational read rather than an execution step. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no direct routing to audit_website, so it stops at 4.
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.