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 clearly describes the tool's behavior: scanning for specific threats, rehydrating PII tokens when provided, and returning detailed security assessment results. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists detection categories, provides usage guidance, explains parameter interactions, and details return values. 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 parameters and return fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance characteristics, which could be useful 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose and interaction of parameters: original_prompt 'enables PII diff and topic mismatch detection' and pii_tokens 'are rehydrated with original values after scanning.' This provides context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Scans an LLM-generated response before showing it to the user' with specific detection categories listed (system prompt leaks, PII, toxic language, topic drift, policy violations). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like scan_prompt, scan_file_write, etc., which handle different scanning targets.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Provide the original_prompt for best results — it enables PII diff analysis and topic mismatch detection' and explains when pii_tokens should be used ('from scan_prompt with redact_pii=true'). It also implies when not to use this tool (e.g., for scanning prompts, files, or SQL queries) by contrasting with sibling tool names.

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