Retrieve current security metrics, active policy profile, build edition and capabilities, blocked threat stats, and DLP redaction totals to assess operational posture.
Returns current operational security metrics, the active policy profile, build edition and capabilities, blocked threat statistics, and DLP redaction totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only snapshot through the verb 'returns', but never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires elevated privileges, whether results are cached or point-in-time, or how large/fresh the payload is. It adds return-content detail but no operational behavior.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns current operational security metrics') and then lists the payload contents. No filler or redundancy. Readability is slightly hurt by a long comma-delimited list, but nothing is wasted.
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, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so item by item (metrics, policy profile, edition/capabilities, blocked threats, DLP totals). That covers the return contract well. The missing piece is the behavioral/usage layer — freshness, point-in-time semantics, and when to call it versus its siblings.
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 trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 and resource: it returns current security posture data, and it enumerates the concrete contents (operational metrics, active policy profile, build edition/capabilities, blocked threat stats, DLP redaction totals). That is far more informative than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as inspect_payload_dlp or enforce_policy, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-side counterpart to enforce_policy or verify_audit_log. No prerequisites or contexts are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.