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 describes the tool's function (searching security docs with natural language) and scope (specific sources and content types), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. The description is accurate but lacks operational details needed for full transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, and the second provides usage instructions. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (search across multiple sources), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and basic usage but omits details on behavioral traits, response format, and error handling. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for a search tool with no structured output information.

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 schema already documents all parameters (query, limit, source) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'query' parameter accepts natural language and listing possible sources for filtering, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search across security documentation') and identifies the comprehensive scope of sources (OWASP, NIST, AWS, etc.) and content types (guidance, best practices, vulnerabilities, controls). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_owasp_top10' (specific to OWASP) and 'list_security_sources' (listing rather than searching) by emphasizing broad, multi-source search capabilities.

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 ('Use natural language queries to find relevant security guidance...'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for broad searches across multiple sources, which differentiates it from more focused siblings, but lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons.

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