Evaluate free text against Agent Threat Rules and GuardBee KVKK/TR rules to detect threats; returns matches with follow-up scanner hints.
Evaluate free text against Agent Threat Rules (ATR) plus GuardBee KVKK/TR rules. Returns matches with follow-up scanner hints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | Detection lane (default: hunt) | |
| type | No | ATR event type (default: llm_input) | |
| format | No | ||
| content | Yes | Text to evaluate | |
| scanContext | 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?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that matches are returned with follow-up scanner hints, which is useful, but says nothing about the enforce/alert/hunt lane semantics, whether evaluation has side effects, or how the different rule sets interact — large gaps for a zero-annotation 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?
Two tightly packed sentences with zero waste; the core action and return shape are front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for what it covers, though this terseness contributes to the completeness gaps.
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 five-parameter tool with four enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains the detection lanes, event types, output formats, or what 'follow-up scanner hints' concretely means, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 coverage is only 60% and the description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters. The crucial 'lane' (enforce/alert/hunt) and 'type' enums are left unexplained, so the agent gets no help understanding what those values actually change about behavior.
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 resource (free text) and names the rule sets (Agent Threat Rules plus GuardBee KVKK/TR) it applies, which conveys real specificity. The 'text' in the name distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_file and evaluate_event, but the description never says so explicitly, nor how it differs from the many other *_scan_text tools.
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 guidance is given. With siblings evaluate_file and evaluate_event and dozens of competing scan_text tools, the description offers nothing to route the agent between them, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.