Compare two security scans by UUID to identify regressions or improvements, enabling quick assessment of changes between scans.
Compare two security scans to identify regressions or improvements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id_1 | Yes | UUID of the baseline scan. | |
| scan_id_2 | Yes | UUID of the comparison scan. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does 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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether the scan IDs must come from a particular source, or whether the comparison is order-sensitive. This leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety cues.
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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It front-loads the core action and outcome, 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states the core purpose and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are needed to fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 documents both parameters as UUIDs for baseline and comparison scans. The description adds no further semantic detail, such as how the IDs should be ordered, but it does reinforce the comparison intent. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('two security scans') and names the intended outcome ('identify regressions or improvements'). This distinguishes it well from siblings like get_scan_history or generate_security_report, since none of those describe a direct two-scan comparison.
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 implies the tool is used when an agent already has two scans to compare, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is inferable but not spelled out, so the agent must reason from sibling names to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.