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 and does well by detailing behavioral traits: it specifies the security checks performed (e.g., sensitive paths, PII), the return structure (blocked status, threat types, severity), and that it operates pre-execution. It lacks explicit info on rate limits or auth needs, but covers core functionality clearly.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of checks and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (security scanning with multiple checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the checks performed, and the return values. However, it could benefit from more context on error handling or integration details, slightly reducing 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for path, content, and mode parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it focuses on the scanning process and outputs rather than parameter specifics, aligning with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('file write operation'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on file write security scanning rather than threat intelligence, reporting, or scanning other types of content like prompts, responses, SQL queries, or web searches.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—before executing a file write operation to check for security threats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as when scanning other data types (e.g., using scan_prompt for prompts).

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