Evaluate a proposed tool call and classify it as allow, ask, or deny before execution to prevent unsafe operations.
Classify a proposed tool call as allow, ask, or deny before execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| tool_input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations providing safety hints, the description must carry full weight. It indicates the tool classifies 'before execution', implying it does not execute the call itself, but it omits details about side effects, permissions, or how the result is used.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and purpose. There is no extraneous information or redundant phrasing.
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?
With no output schema and no description of return values, errors, or example usage, the tool is incomplete from an agent's perspective. The description does not explain what the classification result looks like or how to interpret it.
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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters, and the description adds no detail about what tool_name or tool_input should contain. Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely unspecified.
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 verb 'classify' and the resource 'proposed tool call', with a specific outcome (allow/ask/deny). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on scanning, analysis, or policy checking.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The mention of 'before execution' implies a pre-check scenario, but it does not contrast with alternatives or specify conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.