Lists all indirect prompt injection patterns the scanner can detect, grouped by category, so you can review detection coverage and understand what threats are identified.
List all indirect prompt injection patterns that the scanner can detect, grouped by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"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 burden. It implies a read-only enumeration by saying 'List all ... patterns' and discloses the grouping by category, but it does not state whether patterns include names, descriptions, examples, or any pagination behavior. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, scope, and return grouping efficiently.
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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description explains what is listed and that results are grouped by category. It does not specify the exact return structure, but it is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.
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 has zero parameters, and the empty schema is fully self-documenting. There is no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'List all indirect prompt injection patterns that the scanner can detect.' It also states the grouping ('by category'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list_patterns tools for other scanners, but the purpose is otherwise clear.
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 implied: the tool enumerates detectable patterns, which suggests it is useful for discovery before scanning. However, the description does not say when to use it versus prompt_injection_scanner__scan_text, __scan_file, or __scan_directory, nor does it give exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.