Evaluate a local text file against ATR and GuardBee threat rules to detect security risks in MCP messages, tool calls, or agent behavior.
Read a local file and evaluate its contents against ATR + GuardBee rules
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | ||
| path | Yes | Path to a text file (max 2MB) | |
| type | No | ||
| format | No |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses only that it reads a local file and evaluates against two named rule sets; it says nothing about permissions, cost, side effects, rate limits, what the evaluation returns, or what 'ATR + GuardBee' rules mean. Significant gap for a security-evaluation tool.
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 action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.
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 4 parameters, three undocumented enums, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly. The one-sentence description does not explain lane semantics, type selection, or what a result looks like.
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 only 25% (only 'path' is documented). The description adds no meaning for the three enum parameters (lane, type, format), which are the semantically rich ones determining evaluation mode and output shape. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: read a local file and evaluate its contents against named rule engines (ATR + GuardBee). The 'file' object and named rule sets make it distinguishable from threat_rules__evaluate_text, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.
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 'Read a local file' implies the tool is for on-disk files, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of evaluate_text/evaluate_event as alternatives, and no explanation of which lane (enforce/alert/hunt) or type to pick for a given scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.