create_scorecardScan a remote MCP server and return a shareable scorecard: security score (0-100), letter grade, a public scorecard page URL, and an Open Graph image URL for embedding or social sharing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The MCP server endpoint to score, e.g. https://example.com/mcp |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the server, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The use of 'scan' suggests read-only, but 'create' in the name implies record creation, creating ambiguity.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. Every part earns its place, with no fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It could mention error handling or output format, but it is largely 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%, and the schema already describes the URL parameter well. The description adds a minor clarification ('MCP server endpoint to score') but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it scans a remote MCP server and returns a shareable scorecard with specific fields (security score, letter grade, URLs). The verb 'scan' and resource 'remote MCP server' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scan_mcp_server', which might also scan but return different data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'scan_mcp_server'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 distinct purposes: scan_mcp_server returns raw scan data, while create_scorecard returns a formatted scorecard with a URL and image. They are related but not ambiguous, though an agent might mistakenly think create_scorecard performs the scan internally.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'create_scorecard' and 'scan_mcp_server'. The naming is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels sparse but may be acceptable for a focused service. A broader set like listing or deleting scorecards could be expected, but the count is not extreme.
The server lacks tools for retrieving, updating, or deleting scorecards or scans. After creating a scorecard, there is no way to access it later without re-running, which is a significant gap.