Run Cyphrex check on a proposed action
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"agentId": "<agentId>",
"action": "<action>"
},
"name": "check_action"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +trueInput schema / properties / apiKeyRemoved value: -{
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "agentId",
- "action",
- "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+ "agentId",
+ "action"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'run a check,' implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
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, highly concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity omits critical details, making it under-specified.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter information, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The agent lacks details on expected inputs, outputs, and behavior, making it challenging to use effectively.
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 includes action and agentId with zero description coverage, and the description fails to mention these parameters at all. There is no guidance on what 'action' should contain (string vs object) or what 'agentId' represents, leaving the agent without essential parameter context.
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 the tool runs a Cyphrex check on a proposed action, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or explain what a Cyphrex check entails, leaving some ambiguity.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_action or verify_agent. There are no exclusions or contextual hints, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate selection criteria.
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.