rescan_findingsRe-analyze all captured requests through the findings detectors after changing redaction rules or detector config. Returns counts of analyzed requests and findings.
Re-scan every captured request through the findings detectors. Useful after adding a redaction rule or changing detector config. Returns analyzed and findings counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose it is not read-only but idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload ('analyzed and findings counts') but does not explain whether existing findings are replaced or cleared during the rescan, which matters given readOnlyHint=false.
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?
Three tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the trigger and the return shape. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.
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 output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (analyzed and findings counts). Combined with the usage trigger and annotation coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly implies no input is needed.
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 ('Re-scan') and resource ('every captured request through the findings detectors'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself functionally from read-only siblings like list_findings or get_findings_summary, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Useful after adding a redaction rule or changing detector config.' This is clear contextual guidance for when to invoke it. It stops short of stating exclusions or directly naming sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.