Check the current status of API deprecation scanning to see which deprecated annotations and comments have been identified, building a catalog of deprecated endpoints and features.
Show scan root for deprecations.
| 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 full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of what the output looks like, whether any state changes occur, or what 'scan root' means in practice.
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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main verb, though the ambiguity of 'scan root' slightly reduces its efficiency.
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?
While the tool is simple and parameterless, the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage context leaves the agent without enough information about what a status report contains or how it relates to the sibling scan/catalog tools.
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% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. This is an appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 verb and resource ('Show scan root') but 'scan root' is unclear jargon and is not positioned relative to sibling tools. It is not a tautology, but it leaves the exact object and outcome of the tool ambiguous.
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 for when to use this tool versus apidepr_scan or apidepr_catalog. The name suggests a status/read operation, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.