Scan one file for OAuth and token-handling anti-patterns to catch insecure credential flows early. Use it to audit source code for risky token storage, exposure, or validation gaps.
Scan a single file for OAuth/token-handling anti-patterns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to the file to scan |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the purpose. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the file is modified, what the findings look like, or any rate/size constraints. Only the detection target is conveyed.
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 tight sentence with the verb, scope, and detection target front-loaded and zero wasted words. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 tells the agent what it scans and for what, which is the minimum viable. It omits the return shape (findings list? severity? empty on clean?) and the safety profile, leaving real gaps an agent would want covered.
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% – the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline 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'), a clear resource ('a single file'), and a defined target domain ('OAuth/token-handling anti-patterns'). The 'single file' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling oauth_auditor__scan_directory and scan_text, though it never names those alternatives 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?
Usage is only implied: 'a single file' signals you should reach for this rather than the directory or text variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the routing from the scope noun alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.