Scan a single file to detect exposed secrets and API keys before they leak, optionally flagging random-looking values assigned to secret-like names.
Scan a single file for exposed secrets and API keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to the file to scan | |
| entropy | No | Also flag random-looking values assigned to secret-like names (default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, whether the file is opened/read into memory or executed, how large or binary files are handled, or what happens when a secret is found. Only the high-level purpose is disclosed.
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 nine-word sentence with the target resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so an agent gets no indication of what a scan returns (findings list? locations? severity?) or whether the operation has any side effects. For a security-scanning tool with a configurable detection flag, the description is under-specified.
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%, so both `path` and `entropy` are already documented in the schema, including the default for `entropy`. The description adds no extra semantics such as accepted path forms, behavior on missing files, or what enabling entropy detection costs in false positives, so it stays at the baseline.
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 and resource ('Scan a single file for exposed secrets and API keys') and the word 'single file' implicitly separates it from secret_scanner__scan_directory. It does not, however, distinguish it from secret_scanner__scan_text or scan_git, which target the same secret-detection goal via different inputs.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for an on-disk file path versus pasted content (scan_text) or a repository history (scan_git); no alternative is named or recommended.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.