APVISO 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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the scan is billable (cost implications), requires target verification (prerequisites), and modelPreset affects cost and depth (performance characteristics). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like system load or scan duration 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?

The description is efficiently structured with front-loaded critical information (cost warning, prerequisites). Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second covers costs and prerequisites, the third provides usage guidance, and the fourth explains parameter semantics. Zero wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering costs, prerequisites, and parameter guidance. However, it doesn't describe the return value or what happens after scan initiation (e.g., asynchronous processing, status updates). Given the complexity, a bit more about the operation's nature would be helpful.

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 thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining modelPreset's impact on cost and thoroughness, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for other parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start a new penetration test scan') and resource ('scan'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_target (target creation) or get_scan (scan retrieval). It goes beyond the name/title by specifying the nature of the operation.

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 explicit usage guidance: it warns about costs ('creates a billable scan that costs credits'), specifies prerequisites ('target must be verified first'), recommends checking quota ('Check quota with get_quota before starting'), and explains when to use different modelPreset values. It clearly differentiates from alternatives like get_quota or verify_target.

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