Trigger an on-demand scouting run across YOUR active products.
Scouts run automatically every 30 minutes. Use this when the operator wants
a fresh scan now. At most one on-demand scan per tenant every 15 minutes;
returns status "skipped" with a reason (cooldown / batch_in_progress) when
a scan is not started.
| 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?
Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing a per-tenant rate limit (one on-demand scan per 15 minutes) and the cooldown / batch_in_progress skip reasons for a failed trigger. It stops short of saying whether a successful call blocks until results are ready or returns immediately.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then context, then the failure mode. No filler or repetition of the title or annotations.
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 usefully explains the 'skipped' outcome, but it leaves the success payload ambiguous (what a started scan returns, and whether it is synchronous). For a zero-parameter trigger tool this is close to complete but not fully specified.
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 schema carries no semantics to supplement. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies there is nothing to configure.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('trigger an on-demand scouting run') plus the scope ('across YOUR active products'), and contrasts it with the automatic 30-minute schedule. No sibling tool does scouting, so an agent can select this unambiguously.
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?
Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('Use this when the operator wants a fresh scan now') and distinguishes it from the automatic cycle. It doesn't name alternatives, but none exist among the siblings, so no exclusion guidance is owed.
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.