Audits HTTP security headers in a project and returns structured findings to help remediate misconfigurations.
Audita o domínio "headers" (Seção 11). Retorna findings estruturados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes | Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that it 'returns structured findings', with no detail on what it examines, whether it's read-only, permission needs, or side effects. An audit is presumably a safe read, but the description never confirms this.
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?
Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being audited. Every sentence is terse and relevant, though 'Returns structured findings' is thin rather than wasteful.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the findings contain, yet it only says 'structured findings'. The '(Seção 11)' reference points to an external document the agent cannot resolve, and no behavioral context compensates for the absent 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (project_path) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable baseline when the schema does the work.
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+resource: audits the 'headers' domain. The domain naming ('headers', Section 11) distinguishes it from siblings like sentinela_audit_xss or sentinela_audit_secrets. However, the '(Seção 11)' reference is opaque and the scoping vs sentinela_audit_full is not clarified.
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?
No guidance on when to use this domain-specific audit vs the full audit (sentinela_audit_full) or the other ~20 domain audits. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.