Security Context MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't address critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format/scope of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., vulnerability details, descriptions, mitigations), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully actionable.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'for a specific year or category,' hinting at the optional 'category' parameter's purpose, but doesn't provide additional context like valid year ranges or category examples beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Get information about') and resource ('OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes the tool by specifying the domain (OWASP Top 10) but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_security_context' or 'search_security_docs', which prevents a perfect score.

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 its siblings (get_security_context, list_security_sources, search_security_docs). It mentions the scope ('for a specific year or category'), but this is more about parameter usage than contextual alternatives. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it falls short of providing meaningful usage guidelines.

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