mcp_config_auditor__scan_config_text

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the audit surface (five finding categories) rather than restating the name. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what a finding looks like, or how results are shaped/ordered — meaningful gaps for a scan tool 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: verb, input, supported sources, and the checked issue classes in that order. Every clause earns its place, and the run-on listing is appropriate for a scanner that must enumerate coverage.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should describe what comes back (findings, severities, summary counts) and what happens on invalid JSON — neither is covered. The inputs are fully documented and the detection scope is clear, so the tool is callable, but result interpretation is left entirely to guesswork.

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%, with `content` ("Raw JSON config") and `label` ("Optional filename shown in findings") both documented in-schema. The description reinforces that content is a JSON string of a client config, but adds nothing about `label` or about what happens when the JSON is malformed, so it matches rather than exceeds the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("scan an MCP client config JSON string") and enumerates the exact classes of issues checked: unpinned packages, secrets, wildcard auto-approve, unauthenticated remote endpoints, typosquats. It also names the concrete config formats (Cursor mcp.json, Claude Desktop, Windsurf, VS Code), which is what separates this string-input scanner from siblings like mcp_config_auditor__scan_file or scan_directory.

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 phrase "config JSON string" plus the supported host list makes clear when this tool applies versus the file/directory variants in the same family. It gives no explicit exclusion or fallback (e.g., "use scan_file when you have a path"), leaving the sibling routing to inference from naming.

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