monitor

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 that the tool performs a check and returns a verdict, and implies probing a live server via the 'url' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not modify anything, or disclose any safety considerations (e.g., network access requirements, potential side effects). This is a moderate level of 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and the return value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler. It is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (a verdict). However, it lacks details about how to choose between the 'url' and 'server' parameters, whether both can be provided, and what happens if neither is given. Given there is no output schema, the return value is described adequately, but the parameter selection logic is a gap in completeness.

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 100% – both 'url' and 'server' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no additional explanation of how the parameters interact (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive or preferred), so this score is appropriate.

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's purpose: checking if an MCP server's tools have changed since first recorded and scanning for prompt-injection or data-exfiltration patterns. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'returns a verdict') and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_drift_feed and get_findings, which are about retrieving feeds/findings rather than assessing a server's trustworthiness.

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 description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Call this BEFORE trusting a newly added or recently updated MCP server.' This is a clear usage context. However, it does not mention any alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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 the full burden. It conveys read-only behavior ('List') and ordering ('newest first'), which is useful, but it does not disclose potential response shape, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical use case. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description clearly explains what the tool does and when to use it. It is slightly abstract about what 'definitions' look like, but overall sufficient for its low complexity.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with description 'Max rows, default 25.' The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('MCP tools across the public ecosystem whose definitions recently changed'), including ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_findings, which likely focuses on findings rather than definition drift.

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 description provides a clear use case: 'Use to see whether a dependency mutated.' It gives contextual guidance but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, stopping short of a 5.

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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (listing and filtering) but does not mention return format, safety traits, or side effects. 'List' implies a read-only action, but explicit context is absent. It is not misleading, but not richly transparent either.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential filter details. No wasted words; every clause 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 simple list tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and filter. However, it does not clarify what the returned 'tools' list contains (e.g., names, metadata) or how limit behaves. This leaves minor but noticeable gaps.

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 compensate. It does explain the severity parameter by listing its allowed values (critical, high, medium, low) and its filtering role. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and use ambiguous.

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 a specific action: 'List tools whose descriptions contain detected injection, concealment, or exfiltration patterns.' This gives a verb, resource, and scope, and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_mcp_server or get_drift_feed.

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 description implies use for finding security-related tool descriptions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks the explicit alternatives that would earn a higher score.

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