List every memory-write and memory-readback pattern this scanner detects, grouped by category, so you can audit which poisoning vectors are covered.
List every memory-write and memory-readback pattern this scanner detects, grouped by category
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a behavioral trait — results are grouped by category — and the verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation with no side effects. It stops short of stating whether the listing is static or configurable, whether it can be paginated, or what identifiers it returns.
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, scope, and output grouping all in one clause. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing needs trimming.
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 read-only listing with no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: what is listed and that it is grouped by category. It could go slightly further by describing the shape of each entry (e.g., pattern names/IDs usable elsewhere), but the gap is minor.
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 the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly refrains from inventing inputs, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 (List) and a specific resource (the memory-write and memory-readback patterns this scanner detects), so an agent knows it enumerates detection rules rather than scanning content. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other `*__list_patterns` siblings, though 'this scanner' plus the family prefix scopes it adequately.
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 when-to-use statement and no mention of the companion tools (scan_text, scan_file, scan_directory) that would frame this as a discovery step. Usage is only implicit from the word 'List'; nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to running a scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.