Scans a single file for unbounded consumption and denial-of-wallet anti-patterns, helping identify code that may trigger uncontrolled resource use or unexpected costs.
Scan a single file for Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet anti-patterns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to the file to scan |
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 disclosure burden. It says nothing about what 'anti-patterns' actually get detected, whether the scan is read-only, what the output looks like, or any limits. Only the domain name hints at the behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and domain are stated immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 one-param read scan with a well-described schema this is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would still want to know what findings or rule set to expect. Adequate, not complete.
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 100% and the single parameter (path) is fully documented in the schema, so the description cannot add much. It correctly implies file-level input but adds no syntax, format or origin detail beyond the schema.
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 (scan) and resource (a single file) plus the precise threat domain (Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet anti-patterns). The 'single file' phrasing implicitly separates it from scan_text and scan_directory, though it does not name them 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?
The scope word 'single file' implies when to use this versus the scan_text/scan_directory siblings, but the description never states the condition explicitly or names any alternative. Usage is inferable rather than guided, which is the definition of minimum-viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.