Inspect an MCP manifest before installation or trust; 0.002 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | ||
| manifest | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "manifest": {
+ "tools": [
+ {
+ "description": "Search public records",
+ "inputSchema": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": "search",
+ "outputSchema": {
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "policy": {
+ "max_tools": 64
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the price (0.002 USDC), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what the inspection checks, whether it blocks installation, what verdicts it emits, or any auth requirements for a security-sensitive gate.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the resource comes first and the timing qualifier follows. It is arguably undersized for the tool's complexity, but every element earns its place.
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 nested-schema security gate with no annotations and a policy object that clearly shapes the verdict, the description omits what the inspection evaluates and what 'policy' governs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input contract and behavioral intent are not covered.
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% with two parameters, one required and one nested-object manifest. The description mentions the manifest implicitly but never explains the 'policy' parameter or the expected manifest/policy shape, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Inspect an MCP manifest' — plus a timing qualifier ('before installation or trust') that separates it from siblings like manifest_version_diff or tool_output_firewall. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
'Before installation or trust' implies the usage window, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when not to use it or which sibling (e.g. manifest_version_diff for changed manifests) to prefer, so the routing decision is left to inference.
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.