Check the current health and configuration of the AI Red Team testing environment to verify readiness before running security or robustness tests.
Show Structured robustness/security testing 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or returns a snapshot. It also does not disclose whether it reflects current state or cached data. The lack of explicit safety information is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 sentence with no filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple status/health tool, though it could be slightly more specific without becoming verbose.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what the output looks like or what 'configuration / health' specifically refers to. It does not describe the return format, the scope of 'health', or any prerequisites. For a tool this simple, it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the exact nature of the output.
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, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description does not need to add parameter 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?
The description states a specific action ('Show') and a resource ('configuration / health'), and the phrase 'robustness/security testing' provides some context. It is not a tautology, and it is distinguishable from the sibling tools (scan and suite), which imply running tests. However, the phrasing is a bit ambiguous ('configuration / health' could mean either or both).
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 the siblings (airedteam_scan, airedteam_suite). It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or that it should be used before/after other operations. The agent must infer its role from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.