scan_mcp_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scan's scope and the types of analysis performed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., active probing may trigger alerts, network requests to the target), whether the scan is read-only, or any rate-limit/auth requirements beyond the optional auth_token parameter. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Run a full security scan of an MCP server'), followed by a compact list of scan components. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the list of checks could be seen as slightly redundant with the tool's name and purpose.

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 an output schema (not shown in detail) and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, given the tool performs active security scanning (probing, credential scanning), it would benefit from stating prerequisites, potential impact on the target server, and when to prefer sibling tools. The description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks operational context.

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 (url and auth_token) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Run a full security scan of an MCP server' and enumerates the specific checks performed (prompt injection detection, credential scanning, endpoint probing, tool poisoning analysis, blast radius scoring). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_tool_definitions or check_endpoint_exposure, which target narrower aspects.

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 usage for a comprehensive security scan of an MCP server, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., scan_tool_definitions for tool-specific analysis, check_endpoint_exposure for endpoint checks). The context signals show siblings with overlapping security concerns, so explicit routing guidance would improve this dimension.

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