Evaluates a local text file against ATR and GuardBee threat rules to detect risky LLM inputs, outputs, tool calls, or agent messages.
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.
v0.1.5Input 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 behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. 'Read a local file' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description says nothing about the 2MB limit beyond the schema, what the lane setting does to enforcement behavior, permission requirements, or what a result looks like (no output schema exists).
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?
One short sentence with no filler and the key verb/resource front-loaded, which is structurally sound. But the terseness is under-specification rather than disciplined brevity for a tool with four parameters and three opaque enums.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage mean the description must explain more, yet it omits the lane/type/format semantics and the shape of findings. An agent could invoke it with just a path but would be guessing at the meaning of the three optional parameters and at what comes back.
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 – and three enum parameters (lane, type, format) have no explanation anywhere. The description adds zero parameter meaning, so the agent must guess whether lane='enforce' vs 'hunt' changes the evaluation, and how 'type' or 'format' alter behavior or output.
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 (evaluate) and a specific resource (a local file's contents) and names the rule sets applied (ATR + GuardBee), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling threat_rules__evaluate_text, leaving the file-vs-text split implicit.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Given the sibling set contains threat_rules__evaluate_text plus dozens of other *_scanner__scan_file tools, an agent gets no criteria for choosing this one, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.