proofrelay.scan_mcp_risk

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), description adds 'does not fetch server_url', 'mutates nothing', 'is not a security certification', and details return fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, constraints, output. No redundant or missing information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 zero required parameters, simple input, and presence of output schema, description is thorough: covers behavior, constraints, alternatives, and output structure. No gaps identified.

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% with baseline 3. Description adds nuance for 'server_url' parameter (clarifying it is not fetched), but does not add new info for 'descriptor' parameter. Overall, good supplementary context.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read-only advisory scan of caller-supplied public MCP descriptor metadata', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'verify_bundle' by explicitly mentioning it as an alternative.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use before registering or trusting an MCP server' and lists specific flags (mutating tools, payment language, etc.). Also names alternative tool 'verify_bundle' and states that no authentication is required.

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