Security Mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It only mentions using httpx and a price, omitting side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or response format.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. A single factual line without a proper purpose statement or structured guidance. Not effectively concise.

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the id parameter is used.

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 0% and the description does not explain the single parameter 'id' (e.g., what it represents or examples). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 says it uses httpx public APIs but does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves a specific security record). It fails to distinguish from siblings like list_security_items or search_security.

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 alternatives. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not. The description does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, or any required permissions. It simply states 'Health check.' which is insufficient.

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 extremely short but lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with useful information; it sacrifices clarity for brevity, resulting in under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

Despite low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the health check entails, what results to expect, or any state changes. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke or interpret this tool.

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?

While there are no parameters, the description does not add any meaningful context beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters assumes the description explains the tool's purpose clearly, but here it barely does. The description adds no semantics beyond the name.

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 'Health check.' is a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from its siblings, which are security-related tools, but even without that context, the purpose is vague as it does not identify what system or component is being checked.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 any behavioral traits: what 'security items' are, whether it's read-only or destructive, auth needs, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The mention of 'httpx public APIs' is implementation detail, not behavioral transparency.

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 short but not concise in a helpful way. It wastes characters on tautology ('Tool: list_security_items') and a placeholder price. It lacks front-loaded purpose and structure.

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 the nested 'filters' parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the filters, or how it relates to other tools like get_security_data or search_security.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning. The single parameter 'filters' is an object with additionalProperties: true, but the description does not explain what keys or values are expected, how it affects results, or any examples.

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 is a tautology: 'Tool: list_security_items' restates the name without specifying what the tool does. It mentions using 'httpx public APIs' and a price placeholder, but fails to convey the purpose of listing security items or how it differs from siblings like get_security_data or search_security.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond a vague reference to http APIs. With no annotations, the description should have explained side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but it does not.

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?

While short, the description wastes space with redundant phrasing like 'Tool: search_security.' and lacks substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to provide even minimal context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'query'. The description adds no meaning, leaving the agent without any hint about valid query syntax or expected input format.

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 does not specify what the tool does. It only states the tool name and mentions using httpx public APIs, which is not a clear purpose. It fails to indicate what kind of security search is performed or what results are returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_security_data, list_security_items, or health_check. The description provides no context for selection or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.