Lists all indirect prompt injection patterns the security scanner can detect, grouped by category, to help assess detection coverage.
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.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the primary behavioral trait that results are grouped by category. Beyond that it says nothing about ordering, completeness of the pattern set, or size/volume of the response.
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; the verb, scope, and grouping behavior all appear before the description ends.
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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — only return format details (field names per pattern, category list) are missing, and those are minor for a discovery call.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and 100% covered. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 (list) and resource (indirect prompt injection detection patterns) with a scope qualifier ('that the scanner can detect') and an output-shape hint ('grouped by category'). It is distinguishable from the scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory siblings, though it never explicitly names them.
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: an agent can infer this is a discovery/reference call to learn what the scanner can find before running a scan. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of the sibling scan_* tools, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.