Lists vector-store types the scanner can fingerprint and the unauthenticated-access checks run for each, helping you verify coverage before assessing exposed stores.
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.
v0.1.5Input 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 are provided, but 'List' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the description discloses the shape of the returned content (store types plus the checks run per type). It does not state whether results are static or configurable, nor how large the output is.
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 no filler; both the primary payload (store types) and the secondary payload (per-type unauthenticated-access checks) are stated compactly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does so at a conceptual level. It stops short of describing format or structure, but for a zero-parameter listing tool it is close to 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?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but nothing beyond the baseline is offered.
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 specific resource (vector-store types this scanner can fingerprint) and the secondary content (unauthenticated-access checks per type). It distinguishes this from the many other *_list_patterns siblings by naming the fingerprinting domain, though it doesn't explicitly name vector_store_scanner__scan_endpoint as the actionable counterpart.
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 call that should precede scanning an endpoint with vector_store_scanner__scan_endpoint. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or exclusion guidance, so intent must be inferred from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.