Audits code for IDOR vulnerabilities (Section 6) and returns structured findings to detect insecure direct object references.
Audita o domínio "idor" (Seção 6). 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 behavioral burden. It only says 'Retorna findings estruturados', giving a vague sense of the return shape but nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what it scans, prerequisites, or destructive side effects. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse rather than genuinely well-structured.
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?
For a security audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the audit actually checks, what a 'finding' contains, and any prerequisites (e.g., whether detect_stack must run first). The unexplained 'Seção 6' citation leaves the agent without the context needed to use it confidently.
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% and the single parameter (project_path) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the path, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description neither helps nor hurts.
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 ('Audita') and resource ('o domínio idor'), and the domain name distinguishes it from siblings like sentinela_audit_xss or sentinela_audit_auth. The '(Seção 6)' reference adds a checklist anchor, though it isn't explained. Clear enough that an agent knows this audits IDOR specifically.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing information. It never explains how it relates to sentinela_audit_full (which presumably subsumes it) or sentinela_audit_auth/mass_assignment, which touch adjacent concerns. The 'Seção 6' hint gestures at a checklist but gives no actionable selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.