scan_mcp_url

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers a comprehensive 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. However, there is an inconsistency: the first paragraph states 'Free tier: 5 scans/day per key,' while the Behavioral section says 'Free tier: 10/day rate limit,' which may confuse the AI agent.

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 well-structured with headings, but contains redundancy (the 'Behavior' section repeats much of the 'Behavioral Transparency' section) and a contradiction in rate limit numbers. It could be more concise without losing essential information.

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?

Despite the lack of output schema, the description explains the return format (structured report with findings, severity, score, verdict, hints). It covers the tool's purpose, usage, behavioral details, error handling, and privacy, making it complete for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides minimal explanations ('The url to analyze or process,' 'The api key to analyze or process') that add little beyond the schema's title and type. No format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving the agent with insufficient semantic guidance.

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 action: fetch a remote MCP server's tool listing and scan tools against injection-pattern rules. It specifies the resource (remote MCP server's /tools/list) and the verb (scan), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_tool_descriptions or list_rules.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts and cautions. It advises against sole reliance for production decisions, but lacks direct mention of alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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