scan_textUse the same short-text scan as the website: up to 1,000 visible Unicode characters, with injection and DLP results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Short UTF-8 text of at most 1,000 visible Unicode characters. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / text / descriptionAdded value: +"Short UTF-8 text of at most 1,000 visible Unicode characters."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "Patronus scan response or public scan job envelope.",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the length cap and that both injection and DLP results are returned, though it does not discuss transmission, storage, or rate limits.
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?
One tightly written sentence delivers the core usage instruction, the input limit, and the result types with no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter scanner with an output schema present, the description covers the essential constraints and result types. It is slightly light on explicit sibling routing, but the short-text scope is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description repeats the 1,000-character constraint but adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 names a specific action ('scan') and resource ('short text') and differentiates from sibling scanners by explicitly bounding input to 1,000 visible Unicode characters. It also states the expected result categories (injection and DLP), making the tool's function unmistakable.
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 'short-text scan' and the explicit character limit clearly establish when this tool applies. Sibling names like scan_file and scan_url imply the alternatives, though the description does not explicitly say 'use those for files/URLs'.
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.