Detect exposed secrets and API keys by scanning text strings or code snippets before they are shared or committed.
Scan a text string or code snippet for exposed secrets and API keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Optional label shown in findings (e.g. filename) | |
| content | Yes | The text content 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not state that the operation is non-mutating, what a finding looks like, whether severity/confidence is reported, or how large inputs are handled.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and detection target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the tool returns, and it says nothing about findings, their structure, or their format. For a 3-parameter detection tool that gap leaves the agent guessing about results.
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 all three parameters (content, label, entropy) are already documented, including the entropy default of true. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific verb (scan) and resource (a text string or code snippet) plus the target of detection (exposed secrets and API keys). The input-type framing implicitly distinguishes it from sibling scan_file/scan_directory, but 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?
The phrase 'text string or code snippet' implies the usage context (inline content rather than a file path), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to scan_file or scan_directory for other inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.