list_checksLists every authorization check with its ID, severity, active or passive mode, and availability so you can select and configure appropriate tests.
List every check with its ID, severity, mode (active or passive) and availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is highly valuable because it explicitly states the data elements (ID, severity, mode, availability) returned by the function. This adds crucial behavioral context regarding the output format that annotations alone do not provide.
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 extremely concise, using a single, declarative sentence to define the tool's entire function and scope without any unnecessary words or fluff.
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 that there are no input parameters, providing a complete list of the attributes returned by the check is sufficient to make the tool's output predictable and useful for an AI agent.
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?
Since the input schema is empty (0 parameters), the baseline for this dimension is high. The description adds no required input semantics, and the schema coverage is 100% as it requires no parameters.
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 identifies the resource being manipulated ('check') and the action being taken ('List'), which is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'scan' or 'explain_check'. It successfully defines the scope of the listing.
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 implies this tool should be used when a general overview of checks is needed but does not provide explicit instructions on when to use it over a specific alternative like 'explain_check' which offers deeper detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.