Scan workspace files, git staged diffs, or raw text for unencrypted credentials; get structured findings with line numbers, entropy, and suggested vault handle replacements.
Scan workspace files, git staged diffs, or direct text content for unencrypted credentials, returning structured findings with line numbers, entropy, and suggested {{vault:sec_}} handles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| minEntropy | No | ||
| stagedOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (line numbers, entropy, suggested {{vault:sec_<ulid>}} handles), which implies a non-mutating detection pass, but it never states that nothing is written or uploaded, nor any auth or scope requirements for reading workspace files.
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 enumerates inputs first and outputs second, with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; a mild structural break between inputs and outputs would read better.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and 4 fully undocumented parameters. The description covers the scan targets and the finding shape, but an agent still lacks parameter semantics, safety guarantees, and any indication of what happens on large or binary inputs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps path→workspace files, stagedOnly→git staged diffs, and content→direct text, and mentions entropy (hinting at minEntropy), but gives no format, defaults, or precedence rules for the four parameters.
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 ("Scan") plus three concrete input sources (workspace files, git staged diffs, direct text content) and a clear target (unencrypted credentials). It is distinguishable from vault_search/vault_absorb_credentials by being a detection-only scan, but it never names an alternative sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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 three scan modes implicitly map to path/stagedOnly/content, so the agent can infer which mode to pick, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer this over vault_absorb_credentials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.