Get clear explanations of security check results, including impact and actionable remediation steps for DNS and email findings.
Explain a finding with impact and remediation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted. | |
| status | Yes | Finding severity or status. | |
| details | No | Additional detail from check result. | |
| checkType | Yes | Check type (e.g., 'SPF', 'DMARC'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.37.0v3.31.1v3.29.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context (that output includes impact and remediation) but does not describe format, pagination, or external data access. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not enriching.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essentials. It mentions the output content (impact and remediation) but does not detail return format or edge cases. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the response structure could be helpful, but it is not a critical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as every parameter (checkType, status, format, details) has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema fully carries the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Explain a finding with impact and remediation' clearly states the verb (explain), resource (finding), and the value delivered (impact and remediation). It is concise and distinguishes from sibling check_* tools that likely run checks rather than explain them, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., after a check returns a finding) or exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate. Without this, an agent may struggle to choose between explain_finding and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.