mcp_config_auditor__discover_shadow_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it does not start any MCP server, but it does not state whether it modifies files, whether it only reads config contents, or what permissions or side effects are involved.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first front-loads the OWASP category, action, scope, hosts, and flagging logic; the second adds a key safety constraint. The structure is appropriately sized for a discovery tool.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and a key safety behavior, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape and behavioral boundaries unexplained. An agent can tell what the tool does but not exactly what findings it produces or how they are structured.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (home, allowlist, includeContentAudit) are already documented in the input schema. The description references the organization allowlist at a high level but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (discover), resource (MCP client configs), scope (well-known host paths with named hosts), and outcome (flag non-allowlisted servers as Shadow MCP). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_file and list_host_config_paths, which cover narrower or different actions.

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?

The OWASP MCP09:2025 reference and 'Shadow MCP' framing imply the use case (auditing MCP client configs against an allowlist), but the description never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as scan_inventory, scan_directory, or list_host_config_paths. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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