Check the status of input/output policy validation configuration and health. Verify that guardrails are active and ready to scan text for policy and safety issues.
Show Input/output policy validation configuration / health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Show' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait. However, the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or whether it only reports current state without performing validation.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The key subject is front-loaded, and every word contributes to identifying what the tool shows.
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 zero-parameter status tool, the description is largely complete: it names the subject and the nature of the output. The lack of an output schema raises the expectation for return-value detail, but the low complexity and absence of parameters keep the burden modest.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'Input/output policy validation configuration / health' clarifies what the status refers to, but no parameter documentation is needed.
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 clearly identifies a status/read operation with the verb 'Show' and names the resource: 'Input/output policy validation configuration / health.' It distinguishes from the scan/suite siblings by focusing on current configuration/health rather than an action. The slash between 'configuration' and 'health' creates slight ambiguity about what exactly is returned.
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 given on when to use this tool versus aiguard_scan or aiguard_suite. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The reader can infer it is a status check from the name, but the description does not state that explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.