Audits a single MCP client config file or SKILL.md agent skill for security misconfigurations such as leaked secrets, vulnerable dependencies, and DNS/TLS issues.
Scan one MCP client config file, or a SKILL.md agent skill when the file has that name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the config file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual-mode behavior (config file vs SKILL.md skill), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, what findings it produces, or how it handles unparseable files.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource and the exception appended. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 one-parameter scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description identifies the target but not the nature of the result (security findings, format, pass/fail). It is adequate to invoke correctly but thin on what the agent gets back.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds no format detail (absolute vs relative, config file extensions) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is 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 (scan) and resource (one MCP client config file), plus a special case for SKILL.md agent files. The 'one file' scope implicitly contrasts with scan_directory, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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 single-file targeting and the SKILL.md special case imply when to use it, but the description never states when to reach for it over scan_config_text, scan_directory, or scan_skill_text. Usage must be inferred from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.