Scan a public MCP endpoint read-only to return a 0–100 security score, rubric, findings, and tool hashes, helping assess transport, auth, tool scope, and definition changes.
Scan a public MCP endpoint (initialize + tools/list x2, read-only) and return a 0-100 score with the rubric, findings and tool hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the exact request sequence (initialize + tools/list x2), asserts the operation is read-only, and describes the shape of the result. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit/timeout behavior for a network-facing scan, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single dense sentence with the action, the mechanism, the safety property, and the return payload in that order. No filler to remove.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating what comes back (score, rubric, findings, tool hashes). For a one-parameter network scan, the remaining gap is operational detail such as timeout or failure behavior for unreachable endpoints.
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?
Only one parameter (url) exists and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Public MCP endpoint' does constrain the value semantically (must be an MCP-speaking, unauthenticated URL), but it adds no format, scheme, or example detail beyond that.
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 and resource ('Scan a public MCP endpoint') plus the exact protocol actions performed (initialize + tools/list x2) and the returned artifact (0-100 score, rubric, findings, tool hashes). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling botshield_probe, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 qualifier 'public' implies a precondition (endpoints requiring auth are out of scope), and 'read-only' signals safe usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling botshield_probe as an alternative for a different kind of probe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.