Validates arguments before external tool calls to detect risky shell patterns, eval triggers, and socket connections, helping block unsafe autonomous LLM actions.
Validates arguments passed to external tools for risky shell patterns, eval triggers, or socket connections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| arguments_json | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3v0.1.2v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what is inspected (shell patterns, eval triggers, socket connections). However, it never says what happens when a risky pattern is found — block, warn, or return a verdict — nor whether the tool has side effects, which is a notable gap for a validation tool.
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?
Two short lines with the verb and detection scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the amount of structured information missing, but there is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions the definition leaves an agent unsure about input format and about the consequence of a positive validation result. For a gating safety check, that is insufficient.
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 0% and the schema exposes only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It adds nothing about the format expected for tool_name or arguments_json (e.g., serialized JSON string), leaving both required parameters effectively undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (validates) plus the resource (arguments passed to external tools) and enumerates the threat categories it screens for: shell patterns, eval triggers, socket connections. This is distinct from inspect_python_code, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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?
It implies a pre-invocation safety check but never says when to call it, whether it is mandatory before invoking external tools, or how it relates to inspect_python_code and get_containment_status. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.