Security Context 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 states the tool 'Returns detailed information from multiple authoritative sources,' which gives some context about output richness, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and output characteristics. It's front-loaded with the main function. While efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure to separate purpose from behavioral context.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides minimal behavioral context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive security context' entails, how the information is structured, or what users can expect from the 'multiple authoritative sources.' For a tool that presumably returns complex security information, this leaves significant gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'topic' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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') and resource ('comprehensive security context'), and specifies the scope ('for a specific topic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_owasp_top10' or 'search_security_docs', which might also provide security information.

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. It mentions 'multiple authoritative sources' but doesn't specify when this comprehensive approach is preferred over the more focused 'get_owasp_top10' or broader 'search_security_docs'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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