scan_server_card

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 discloses that the tool fetches a remote file and scans for AVE vulnerabilities, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, network requirements, error behavior for unreachable URLs, or whether it modifies any state. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and a second sentence adding necessary detail. The second paragraph could be slightly more compact, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it fails to mention error handling (e.g., unreachable URL), and the acronym 'AVE' is not explained. It is sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'bypass all suppressions' for no_ignore) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 'scan' and resource 'MCP server-card' with a specific purpose 'security vulnerabilities'. It also provides detail on what the scan involves (fetching .well-known/mcp.json and scanning descriptions/schemas), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_conformance or scan_content.

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 explicitly recommends this as 'the primary tool to run before adding any MCP server to your configuration,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the primary usage clear.

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