Lists all Unbounded Consumption and denial-of-wallet patterns this auditor detects, grouped by category, so you can review coverage and understand which cost-abuse risks are checked.
List every Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet pattern this auditor detects, grouped by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the name — results are 'grouped by category' — but says nothing about what a pattern entry contains (ID, name, description, regex), whether results are stable/static, or how they map to scan findings. Low risk given a zero-param, clearly read-only listing operation.
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. The verb, scope, and output grouping are all present in one pass with nothing redundant.
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 output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of return-value information; 'grouped by category' hints at shape but does not say what fields a pattern entry has or whether pattern identifiers can be fed into the scanner tools. Adequate for a simple enumeration call, but not enough to chain 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a clearly scoped resource ('every Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet pattern this auditor detects'). The domain qualifier distinguishes it from the many other list_patterns siblings, though it never names an alternative tool 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/introspection call to enumerate what the auditor can catch, presumably before running scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the ~20 sibling list_patterns tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.