Scan text for secrets, PII, code, or jailbreak attempts before sending prompts to a local model; returns findings and a weighted risk band.
[READ] Pure content scan of a text for secrets / PII / code / jailbreak.
No Ollama call — a deterministic scan returning findings + a weighted risk band. Use it to pre-check anything before sending it to a local model.
Args: text: The text to scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real added weight: it discloses that no Ollama/LLM call is made, that the scan is deterministic, and that it returns findings plus a weighted risk band. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation, though it omits details like severity thresholds or rate limits.
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?
Front-loads the [READ] tag and the one-line purpose, then the key behavioral note, then usage. The trailing Args block restating a self-evident parameter is slightly wasteful but overall tight and well-ordered.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return value (findings + weighted risk band) and the deterministic nature. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing, though the output shape is described only in the abstract.
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 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description's 'Args: text: The text to scan' is essentially redundant with the schema title 'Text'. It neither compensates with format guidance (e.g., size limits, encoding) nor leaves anything genuinely unclear, so a baseline 3 fits.
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?
States a specific verb (scan) and resource (a text/prompt) with a clearly enumerated scope: secrets / PII / code / jailbreak. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'guarded_generate' by being the pure scan rather than the generation path.
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?
Explicitly says to 'use it to pre-check anything before sending it to a local model,' which gives a clear usage context. It stops short of naming the alternative (guarded_generate) or stating when NOT to use it, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.