Check a code snippet against one or more policy packs. Returns violations with severity, governance context (CWE, MITRE, regulatory), and line numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code snippet to check. | |
| packId | No | Policy pack ID or array of IDs. Defaults to 'web'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses return values (severity, governance context, line numbers) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, or has side effects. Since 'check' implies non-destructive, this is adequate but not complete.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that provides the action, target, and output in a concise manner. No redundant words or filler.
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 has no output schema, so the description's mention of the return value (violations, severity, context, line numbers) is essential. It covers the main purpose and output adequately. However, given there are no annotations, it could also benefit from a note about read-only behavior or prerequisites, but for a check tool this is sufficient.
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% (both code and packId have descriptions). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'one or more' policy packs. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores a 3.
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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('code snippet' against 'policy packs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_proof or list_packs, which serve different purposes.
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 its usage (checking code against policy packs) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are clearly different, so context is implied, but no real guidance is provided.
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.
