Retrieve the full list of security detectors available in Deepsleuth, including IDs, categories, phases, and required capability layers, to plan MCP server audits.
List every detector in the deepsleuth registry: id, category, evidence location, phase, and required capability layers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (id, category, evidence location, phase, required capability layers) and claims completeness ('every detector'), but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, ordering, or pagination.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, scope, and payload are packed into one line, and every clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: that it returns the full registry and which fields each entry carries. Gaps are limited to ordering/pagination and the read-only nature, which are minor here.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit. The enumerated field list is about output, not inputs, so it does not affect this dimension.
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 and resource ('List every detector in the deepsleuth registry') and enumerates the returned fields, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the siblings check_listing or scan_target.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is given. Usage is only implied: a full-registry listing is self-evidently a discovery step, but the description never states that intent or contrasts it with scan_target/check_listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.