Lists vector-store types the scanner fingerprints and the unauthenticated-access checks it runs for each, helping you verify exposure coverage.
List the vector-store types this scanner can fingerprint, and what unauthenticated-access checks it runs for each
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'List' implies read-only behavior, and the sentence describes the output content, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no authentication, or returns any particular structure.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause—listing types and stating the per-type checks—adds distinct value.
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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what will be returned (the supported vector-store types and their unauthenticated-access checks). It is nearly complete, but without annotations it could explicitly note read-only safety or the absence of side effects to fully relieve ambiguity.
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, and the schema is an empty object with 100% description coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none exists.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vector-store types this scanner can fingerprint') plus the secondary content ('what unauthenticated-access checks it runs for each'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_endpoint tool, which would perform scanning rather than listing supported patterns.
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 implied by the nature of a listing tool: an agent would call this to discover available types and checks. However, the description never explicitly says when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to scan_endpoint (e.g., 'call this before scanning to see supported types').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.