List every dangerous Python global (module.function) this scanner flags in pickled model files, grouped by risk category, to reveal risky references.
List every dangerous Python global (module.function) this scanner treats as a red flag when found referenced inside a pickled model file, grouped by risk 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, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, and 'grouped by risk category' discloses something about the result shape, but there is no explicit statement of read-only safety, no auth/caveat notes, and no fuller description of the returned payload. It adds some behavioral context but not richly.
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 dense sentence with the key scope (dangerous Python globals in pickled model files) and grouping front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; 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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and how it is organized (by risk category). It stops short of detailing the return structure or any caveats, but is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.
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, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-argument tool; the description correctly does not invent parameters.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus a precisely scoped resource: dangerous Python globals (module.function) flagged when referenced inside a pickled model file, and grouped by risk category. This clearly distinguishes it from the model_scanner__scan_file and scan_directory siblings, which scan rather than enumerate the rule set.
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 phrasing ('this scanner treats as a red flag') implies the tool is used to inspect the scanner's rule set, likely before or to interpret scan results, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. There is no direction to the scan_* siblings or any statement of prerequisites. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.