Run only CRITICAL and HIGH severity security checks for secrets, environment exposure, injection, and authentication to assess pre-publish risk in a project.
Sadece CRITICAL ve HIGH seviye kontrolleri çalıştırır. Secrets, env exposure, injection ve auth gibi en kritik kontrolleri yapar. Hızlı güvenlik değerlendirmesi için kullanılır.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Taranacak projenin kök dizini |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral load. It highly successfully communicates the limited depth of the scan—specifically targeting only CRITICAL/HIGH severities and mentioning core checks like auth and injection.
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 highly efficient, front-loading the critical scope limitation before listing specific checks and concluding with the overall use case.
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 'quick' scanning tool, the definition is contextually complete. The agent knows exactly what security coverage it can expect and when it should choose this over a full scan.
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 coverage is 100%, providing a high baseline. The description does not add specific semantics to the single parameter ('projectPath'), but it successfully frames the context in which that path is evaluated.
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 performs security checks (e.g., Secrets, injection) and critically, defines its scope as running only CRITICAL and HIGH level controls, distinguishing it from a full scan.
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?
It explicitly states its intended use ('Hızlı güvenlik değerlendirmesi için kullanılır'), positioning it as a quick alternative to more comprehensive tools like publish_control.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.