list_scansRetrieve an account's recent scans, newest first, with a configurable limit of 1-50 to review prior Android and iOS security findings.
List the account's most recent scans, newest first (1-50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral facts beyond the annotations: result ordering (newest first) and a hard cap of 50 with no pagination. It does not state what a scan record contains or how truncation should be handled.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering and range constraint packed in without waste. Nothing redundant.
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, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. For a one-parameter list tool the description plus structured fields is nearly sufficient; only the absence of pagination/truncation behavior at the 50 cap leaves a small gap.
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% – the single `limit` parameter has only a default of 10 and no documented meaning. The description partially compensates by giving the valid range (1-50), which is real added value, but it leaves the default implicit and never ties the range explicitly to the `limit` parameter name.
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 ("List the account's most recent scans") with scope (account-level) and ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from the singular get_scan sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative or clarifying how it relates to get_findings/get_usage.
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?
"Most recent scans" implies the discovery/browse use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_scan, get_findings, or start_scan, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.