Lists the PII and credential detectors the scanner runs so you can verify which sensitive-data checks are applied during document scans.
List the PII and credential detectors this scanner 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but nothing states the return shape, whether detectors can be configured, or whether this reflects enabled vs. available detectors.
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. Brevity is appropriate for a zero-argument listing tool, though it leaves detail on the table rather than being too long.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say what the returned list looks like (detector names, categories, enabled status). It also doesn't distinguish 'PII and credential detectors' from the scanner's other capabilities, leaving a gap for such a simple tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals no input is needed.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'List the PII and credential detectors this scanner runs'. An agent knows exactly what it returns conceptually. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling scanners' list_patterns tools, but the scope is specific to this scanner's 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?
Implied use as a discovery/introspection step before or alongside scan_document and scan_base64, but the description never states when to call it or what to do with the results. No alternatives or exclusions named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.