Scan OpenAPI specs to detect security gaps such as missing authentication, and generate a security test checklist for remediation.
Scan OpenAPI for security gaps (auth missing, etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | OpenAPI JSON |
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. It only mentions 'scan' which implies read-only, but does not disclose whether any state is changed, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and an example of what it detects.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the scan produces, how results are returned, or any constraints. It is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior or expected 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'spec' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool scans an OpenAPI specification for security gaps, with 'auth missing' as an example. This gives a specific verb (scan) and resource (OpenAPI), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like apisec_status or apisec_checks, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It is implied that you use it when you have an OpenAPI spec to scan, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.