threat_score[security] Multi-vector threat score
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": {
"agent_id": "<agent_id>"
},
"name": "threat_score"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds only the vague phrase 'multi-vector' without explaining what vectors are considered, what the score means, or how context influences the result.
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 it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The category tag and restated name consume the entire description without conveying operational meaning.
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 two-parameter scoring tool with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the scoring semantics, output range, context usage, or how to interpret the result.
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%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It says nothing about agent_id or context, including what values context should take or how it changes scoring behavior.
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 essentially the tool name plus a category tag: '[security] Multi-vector threat score.' It does not state a specific verb, resource, scoring scope, or how it differs from closely related siblings such as defi_risk_score, trust_score, or identity_sybil_check.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like trust_score, defi_risk_score, identity_sybil_check, and compliance_check all overlap conceptually, and the description provides no routing 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.