mcp_server_auditor__scan_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the concrete detection categories (excessive-agency names, shell/eval/SQL/SSRF sinks, permissive schemas, hardcoded secrets, wildcard CORS), which is real behavioral content. It omits outcome semantics entirely — no mention of whether it reports findings or errors, severity levels, or whether it only detects and never modifies.

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 the purpose stated before the parenthetical detail list. The pattern enumeration is long but each item adds discriminating information, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only scanner with no output schema, an agent still does not know the shape of the response (finding objects, severities, rule IDs) or whether scanning is exhaustive. The detection scope is well covered, but return-value expectations are left entirely unspecified.

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%, and both parameters (content, optional label) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about content format, size limits, or how label appears in output, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (text string / code snippet) and names the domain — insecure MCP server/tool-definition patterns — which distinguishes it from generic scanners like secret_scanner__scan_text or prompt_injection_scanner__scan_text. It never names a sibling or says which scanner to pick when several overlap, so differentiation is domain-based only.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of the sibling mcp_server_auditor__scan_file / scan_directory / list_patterns, nor on prerequisites or when not to use it. The only routing signal is implicit in the word 'text string', leaving the agent to infer text-vs-file alternatives.

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