Sentinela

sentinela_audit_auth

Audit the authentication domain of a project to identify security and compliance findings, returning structured results for review and remediation.

Instructions

Audita o domínio "auth" (Seção 8). Retorna findings estruturados.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "sentinela_audit_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_path`	Yes	Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only notes that findings are returned "estruturados"; it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires a specific project layout, what auth/permission context it needs, or how findings are shaped. "Seção 8" is unexplained jargon rather than behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The only questionable element is the unexplained "(Seção 8)" citation, which consumes space without informing the caller.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the audit inspects and roughly what comes back. "Retorna findings estruturados" is a placeholder that leaves the agent unable to predict the result or decide between this and sentinela_audit_full.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_path as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Audita") and a scoped resource (the "auth" domain), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling audit tools by domain name. The parenthetical "(Seção 8)" is an opaque internal reference that adds no usable meaning, and the neighboring identity/secrets/mutations audits make the boundary of what "auth" covers non-obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over sentinela_audit_full or overlapping siblings like sentinela_audit_identity. An agent must infer that this is the auth-scoped slice of a larger audit, but nothing states prerequisites (e.g., whether detect_stack must run first) or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server