Run five deterministic engines on changed files to detect fabricated fallbacks, weakened tests, disabled checks, contract violations, and static BOLA risks.
Run engines 1-5 (anti-fabrication, test integrity, diff guard, contract guard, static BOLA) on changed files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base_ref | No | Base git ref to diff against, e.g. origin/main | |
| workspace_path | No | Path to the repository to scan | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by listing the five engines and changed-file scope, but it does not explain report format, failure behavior, or what the scan returns.
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 that names the engines and scope with no wasted text. It is compact and directly useful for tool selection.
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 read-only scan has full schema coverage and annotations that cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return value or failure semantics. That leaves an important gap for an agent deciding what to expect from the scan.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the changed-file scope and adds no additional meaning for base_ref or workspace_path 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?
Uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact engines included, plus scopes the scan to changed files. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with prufgate_full_scan or the individual engine tools.
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 'fast_scan' name and 'changed files' scope imply a quick targeted scan, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus prufgate_full_scan or individual engine tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.