Retrieves the last SARIF or Markdown report written by prufgate.sh without rerunning a scan, enabling review of existing repository audit findings.
Read the last SARIF/Markdown report written by ./prufgate.sh without running a scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a crucial nuance the annotations don't: it reads a previously-written artifact from ./prufgate.sh, so results can be stale and no scan cost is incurred. It does not state what happens when no report exists.
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 sentence with no waste; the no-scan constraint is front-loaded where an agent will see it immediately.
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 simple one-param read tool with rich annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should indicate what is returned (raw SARIF vs. Markdown text) and the failure mode when no prior report exists.
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% with the single optional workspace_path fully documented, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Precise verb+resource: 'read the last SARIF/Markdown report'. It implicitly contrasts with the scan siblings by stating 'without running a scan', though it never names them directly.
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 phrase 'without running a scan' implies the retrieval use case versus the prufgate_*_scan siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when you already have a report; use prufgate_full_scan to produce a fresh one' routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.