MCP Shamash

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'within project boundaries', which adds some context about scope, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or expected output format. For a network scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of network scanning (which can involve security implications and varied outputs), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's full impact, such as whether it's safe to use, what results to expect, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (e.g., 'Port range to scan', 'Network target'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the action ('Performs network scanning') and scope ('within project boundaries'), which provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about what 'network scanning' entails (e.g., port scanning, vulnerability detection) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'scan_project' or 'pentest_application', leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'within project boundaries', which hints at a scope constraint. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_project' or 'pentest_application', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.