Security-Use 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 'attack payload, source IP, and matched patterns', which adds some context about output content. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid alert IDs. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes key return details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output content but lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would improve agent understanding.

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%, with the single parameter 'alert_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific security alert'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_security_alerts' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single alert. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other alert-related tools like 'acknowledge_alert'.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an alert ID from 'get_security_alerts'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'analyze_request' or 'detect_vulnerable_endpoints'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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