Scan an MCP server for security risks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: only allowlisted servers, no dynamic tool invocation, and baselines are not approved from this interface. These are real behavioral constraints beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover rate limits, auth, or output size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate safety constraints. No wasted words.

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 annotations cover safety and an output schema exists for return values, the description supplies the key missing context: allowlisting, no dynamic invocation, no baseline approval. Parameter formats remain the main gap, but overall it is nearly complete for a read-only scan tool.

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 would need to compensate for two undocumented parameters ('target' and 'transport'). It mentions an operator-allowlisted HTTP MCP server but does not explain the target format (URL, name) or the transport options (auto default). Baseline 3 given the gap.

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: enumerate metadata from an allowlisted HTTP MCP server and return security findings. Clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish from siblings (there are none).

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The statement about not invoking tools dynamically and not approving baselines implies scope limits but does not tell the agent when this scan is appropriate versus other actions.

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