Audits a project for mass-assignment flaws, returning structured findings to identify unsafe object property binding and guide fixes.
Audita o domínio "mass-assignment" (Seção 20). 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 disclosure burden. It reveals nothing about whether the scan is read-only relative to the target project, expected runtime, whether it needs installed dependencies or a specific stack, or what a 'finding' contains. 'Retorna findings estruturados' is the only behavioral hint.
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 tight sentences with the domain scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about structured findings is brief but partly redundant with the naming convention; still, nothing is wasted.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the safety profile, what checks the mass-assignment audit performs, and how findings are shaped. It does none of these, leaving an agent unable to predict results or distinguish this from the broader audit_full sibling beyond the label.
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?
Only one parameter (project_path), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no additional meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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/domain ('mass-assignment', Seção 20), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling domain audits like sentinela_audit_xss or sentinela_audit_idor. It also notes the return type ('findings estruturados'). It stops short of 5 because it never explains how this domain relates to the overlapping sentinela_audit_mutations or the catch-all sentinela_audit_full.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you need the mass-assignment check' from the domain name. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing advice against sentinela_audit_full or sentinela_audit_mutations, which cover adjacent ground.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.