List canary-based red-team probes for testing an LLM or chatbot, grouped by category, to help you choose safe security checks before running an assessment.
List all red-team probes this tool can run against a target LLM/chatbot, grouped by category. Every probe is canary-based (safe) — none ask the target to produce genuinely harmful content.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that every probe is canary-based and safe, which is key context. However, it does not explicitly state that this listing call has no side effects or that it does not execute any probes against a target.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The primary action and return format are front-loaded, and the safety caveat follows naturally.
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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is listed and how it is grouped. It could go slightly further by noting that each probe entry includes identifying metadata, but the low complexity makes this a minor 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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the baseline rule for zero-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter detail because none 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?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (red-team probes), and specifies the return grouping (by category). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_probe_suite by being a listing tool, but the phrase 'this tool can run' is slightly ambiguous about which tool actually executes probes.
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: an agent can infer this is for discovering available probes, likely before invoking run_probe_suite. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling run tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.