Detect five families of credential patterns with fully masked findings. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caveat | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| limitReached | Yes | ||
| rulesVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: findings are 'fully masked' (results will not leak the secrets), it is free during validation, and no key/credits/wallet are required. It stops short of describing limits (only 'Existing source and input limits apply' vaguely).
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the following three sentences ('FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Existing source and input limits apply.') are largely commercial boilerplate that dilutes the actionable content. It is not bloated to the point of harm, but not tight either.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required, but the description never clarifies what the five credential families are or what 'input' should contain — the only real input gap for an agent to call it correctly. For a single-purpose scanner this is a notable omission.
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 0% for the single nested parameter, so the description must carry the burden. 'Supply your task in input' adds almost nothing and is arguably misleading, since the schema expects a 'text' string field (maxLength 100000) rather than a 'task'. The agent gets no clarity on what text to supply.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Detect five families of credential patterns with fully masked findings.' That is concrete enough to know this is a secret/credential scanner. It never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling security_secret_redact, so the sibling differentiation required for a 5 is absent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to scan versus redact, nor what input context is appropriate. The sentences about being 'FREE during validation' and needing 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation' describe pricing/access, not usage selection. The agent is left to infer the sibling routing.
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.