Compute a six-dimension quality score for a scan run and flag risk; dimensions below 60 indicate issues. Get scan_run_id via issues_list or scan_file.
Six-dimension quality score of a scan run (use issues_list or scan_file to obtain scan_run_id). Dimensions below 60 indicate risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real business context beyond that — that the output has six dimensions and that values below 60 signal risk — but does not describe the return format or the individual dimensions.
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?
Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite parenthetical attached where needed. Efficient, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the main sentence.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (a six-dimension score), how to supply the required argument, and how to interpret results (below 60 = risk). Only the identity of the six dimensions is left unexplained, which is a minor gap.
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?
With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load and does so partially: it explains provenance of scan_run_id (issues_list or scan_file). It gives no format details for the ID itself, so the compensation is incomplete.
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 names a specific resource (a scan run's six-dimension quality score) and characterizes the operation clearly enough to distinguish it from siblings like repair_verify or contract_validate. The verb is nominalized ("score of a scan run") rather than an explicit action, which slightly blunts the clarity.
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?
It gives a prerequisite hint by naming issues_list and scan_file as the way to obtain scan_run_id, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to reach for quality_score versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, so usage is only partially guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.