Lists every OWASP MCP08 audit-gap check the auditor runs, helping you confirm which security gaps it can detect before an audit.
List every OWASP MCP08 audit-gap check this auditor runs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'list' and 'every ... this auditor runs' make clear it is a complete, read-only enumeration with no side effects. However, it says nothing about the shape of the returned catalog (identifiers, names, severities) or whether the list can be filtered, which matters with no output schema.
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 whole purpose is conveyed in under ten words.
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-param tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent does not learn what a returned entry contains or how to reference a check in a subsequent scan call. One more clause on the return contents would close the remaining gap.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals an unfiltered, take-no-arguments listing.
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?
Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource: the OWASP MCP08 audit-gap checks this auditor runs. It is clearly distinguished from its own scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory siblings by being the enumeration call. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it stays at 4.
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?
Usage is only implied: the zero-parameter, 'list every check' framing suggests it is a discovery step before running a scan. There is no statement of when to prefer it over scan_file/scan_text, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.