Lists the PII and credential detectors this scanner runs, so you can verify which sensitive data patterns are checked in inspected traffic.
List the PII and credential detectors this scanner runs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, but the description does not state the return shape, whether the list is static or dynamically discovered, or what detector identifiers look like. It conveys only that detectors exist to be enumerated.
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, scoping the resource precisely. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 parameterless read-only enumerator with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (the scanner's PII and credential detectors). It is slightly thin on the form of the returned items, but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 ('List'), resource ('detectors'), and the scope of that resource ('PII and credential detectors this scanner runs'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling storage tools like document_scanner__scan_document and scan_base64, which perform scans rather than enumerate detectors.
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 implied by the verb 'list' — an agent would call it when it wants to know what detectors are available. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to call it, and no named alternative such as scan_document for actually running a scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.