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. It discloses that bypasses 'will be analyzed and may generate a new detection pattern,' which adds useful behavioral context about the tool's effect. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the reported data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bulleted list efficiently organizes parameter usage by bypass type. However, the final sentence about analysis and detection patterns could be integrated more smoothly.

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 reporting tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to use parameters. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about response format, error conditions, or system-level behavior that would be helpful for an agent.

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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by grouping parameters into bypass types (e.g., 'Prompt bypasses: Use 'prompt' field'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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: 'Reports content that bypassed security checks to help improve detection.' It specifies the verb ('reports') and resource ('content that bypassed security checks'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_prompt or scan_sql_query, which appear to be detection tools rather than reporting tools.

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 implied usage guidelines by listing the supported bypass types and their corresponding fields, suggesting when to use specific parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this reporting tool versus the sibling scanning tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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