trust_scan_fileSecurity scan a single file for invisible Unicode, dangerous patterns, secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filepath | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the scan checks for, but it does not explicitly state whether the file is modified, what permissions are needed, or how findings are returned. The scan wording implies read-only behavior, but this is not explicit.
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 immediately identifies the action, target, and scan categories. Every word adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and scope well. It lacks explicit usage guidance against the sibling, but that gap is already accounted for in the usage dimension and does not make the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, filepath. The description adds that the parameter refers to a single file to scan, but it does not explain path formats, file types, or any constraints on the filepath.
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 action ('security scan'), a clear target ('a single file'), and the scan scope (invisible Unicode, dangerous patterns, secrets). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling trust_scan_server by focusing on a single file rather than a server.
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 phrase 'a single file' and the sibling name trust_scan_server imply a file-level versus server-level use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling or provide any exclusion conditions.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: scanning a file versus scanning a server. No ambiguity or overlap.
Both tools follow the identical 'trust_scan_<target>' pattern, making the naming convention highly predictable and consistent.
With only two tools, the set is compact but still covers the core scanning targets (file and server). It feels slightly thin but is appropriate for a narrowly scoped security scanner.
The tools cover the primary scan targets mentioned in the description (file and server), but could potentially include other targets like directories or packages. Minor gap but does not hamper the main use case.