Shrike Security MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a threat intelligence tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned data types without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity of threat intelligence and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format, structure), data sources, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (category and limit) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as example categories or usage tips, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('current threat intelligence'), including what data it returns ('active detection patterns, threat categories, and statistics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieval rather than scanning or reporting, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling scanning tools (e.g., scan_prompt, scan_response) or report_bypass. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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