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 an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the return format in detail, describes conditional behavior (blocked=false returns only request_id), and provides crucial security context about PII redaction and data handling. The only minor gap is lack of rate limit or performance information.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by organized sections on returns, conditional behavior, and parameter implications. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and there's zero wasted text.

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 3-parameter security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the scanning purpose, detailed return format, conditional behavior, and parameter implications. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning error cases or performance characteristics, but it covers the essential operational context well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the redact_pii parameter's implications beyond the schema: it details what happens when enabled (client-side redaction, response includes redacted_content and tokens), and clarifies that PII never leaves the MCP process. This provides crucial operational context not in the schema.

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 ('scans text for security threats') and resources ('PII, prompt injection, jailbreak attempts, and toxicity'), distinguishing it from siblings like scan_file_write or scan_sql_query by focusing on text content rather than files or queries.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (scanning text for security threats) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning specific threat types. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives among the sibling tools.

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