Scan a remote MCP server

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the concrete side effects: temporary OAuth clients are registered and deleted, and the configured test grant is consumed. It also states the ownership-proof precondition and the human-confirmation requirement, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three dense sentences: capability first, side effects second, safety gate last — a natural decision order for an agent. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim and no sentence is filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, preconditions, and authorization. What it leaves out is what a successful scan returns (findings, check results, references to list_checks/explain_check), which would help an agent plan the follow-up call.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage and an inline example, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the target must be a remote MCP server URL, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 (discovery scan + active authorization tests) against a specific resource (a remote MCP server URL), and distinguishes the two modes of operation (discovery always, active tests only with a valid ownership proof). An agent can tell what it does and under what condition without opening the schema.

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 restricts use to servers the user owns or is authorized to test and requires prior user confirmation, which is exactly the when-to-use gating an agent needs. It also implies the ownership_proof/verify_ownership prerequisite via 'on hosts with a valid ownership proof,' but never names those sibling tools, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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