Initiate an OWASP Dependency-Check scan on a permitted repository path to detect known vulnerabilities in project dependencies.
Start an OWASP Dependency-Check scan for an allowed repository path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_name | No | ||
| repository_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions starting an OWASP Dependency-Check scan but says nothing about whether the scan is asynchronous, whether the call blocks, what permissions are required, what happens when the path is not allowed, or how the caller should proceed afterward. The output schema covers return values, but operational behavior remains largely undisclosed.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place and conveys the core action and target resource efficiently.
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?
The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a scan-starting mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits async/polling behavior, permission requirements, and the meaning of the optional project_name parameter. An agent would need to guess important operational details.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions the required repository_path and adds that it must be an 'allowed' path, which is some useful context. However, it completely omits the optional project_name parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Start an OWASP Dependency-Check scan.' This clearly separates it from siblings like get_scan_status and get_scan_report, which handle status and reporting. It is clear enough for selection, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings.
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: the agent can infer this tool begins a scan for a repository. The phrase 'for an allowed repository path' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.