Store blocked attack samples as antibody signatures to detect exact and near-miss repeats, preventing future prompt injection attempts.
Store a blocked sample as an antibody signature (exact + near-miss).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| attack_class | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies persistence and dual exact/near-miss matching but says nothing about idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, blast radius on future detection, or return behavior.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity costs some clarity, but nothing is redundant.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters needs substantially more: what gets stored, what happens on repeat submissions, and what the caller receives. None of that is present.
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% and the description names none of the four parameters. 'Blocked sample' loosely maps to `text`, but `attack_class`, `severity` (enum low/med/high), and `reason` are entirely unexplained in both schema and 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Store ... as an antibody signature') and the parenthetical '(exact + near-miss)' clarifies the matching mode being created. It is distinguishable from siblings (verify_claims, check_injection, stats, demo) as the only write/registration tool, though the domain term 'antibody' is never defined.
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 phrase 'a blocked sample' vaguely implies this is called after a detection/block event, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as trust_check_injection. No prerequisites or dedupe guidance are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.