Explains a DNS or email security finding by detailing its impact and recommended remediation, so users can understand severity and fix the issue.
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.
v3.103.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev3.37.0v3.31.1v3.29.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's marginal value is the disclosure that the response carries impact and remediation content. It does not say how the explanation is derived, whether it depends on checkType/status alone, or how the details parameter improves quality.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately followed by the payoff content. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 should convey more about the returned explanation than 'impact and remediation'; format auto-detection behavior and the relationship to the finding fields it consumes remain unexplained. It is minimally adequate for a 4-param read-only tool but leaves an agent guessing about output shape.
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% and both enums are documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the implicit mapping that status/checkType/details describe 'a finding', with no added semantics for the format parameter's auto-detection or the effect of supplying details.
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 plus resource ('Explain a finding') with a stated content scope: impact and remediation. An agent can distinguish it from the many check_* siblings, which produce findings, but the description never names those siblings or states that this consumes their output.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool assumes a finding already exists (from a check_* or batch_scan result) and is being interpreted. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from alternatives such as check_* reruns, generate, or validate_fix, which is the closest conceptual sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.