Summarize loaded threat rule counts by category and source, distinguishing ATR from GuardBee and optionally filtering by enforcement lane to assess detection coverage.
Summarize loaded rule counts by category and source (ATR vs GuardBee)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | 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 burden, and it does disclose the returned content shape (counts grouped by category and source). However, it says nothing about whether rules must be loaded first, whether the result is filtered, or any behavioral edge cases.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), so the description does not need much, but the unexplained `lane` filter and the absence of any relation to list_rules/framework_map leave gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single `lane` parameter. The enum values enforce/alert/hunt are self-describing in isolation, but the description does not say whether lane filters the counts or how it interacts with the summary.
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 ("Summarize") and resource ("loaded rule counts") with an explicit grouping dimension (category and source, ATR vs GuardBee). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_rules, but the description never names that sibling to reinforce the split.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the aggregation/overview tool versus list_rules or evaluate_event, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it or when not to. No prerequisites or routing guidance are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.