sri_analysisInventory external scripts and stylesheets for a URL and measure Subresource Integrity coverage, highlighting missing or invalid SRI attributes.
Inventory external script and stylesheet resources and measure Subresource Integrity coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| resources | Yes | ||
| coverage_percent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the scope of what is inspected (external scripts and stylesheets) but says nothing about whether the target page is fetched/crawled, whether the analysis is passive or active, or any rate/depth constraints — a real gap given openWorldHint implies network egress.
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; the action and object are stated immediately. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves the ambiguities noted in other dimensions unaddressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the meaning and expected form of the url parameter and the extent of scanning, which an agent needs in order to invoke this 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?
One parameter (url) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and fails to define it. It never clarifies whether the URL is a single page to inventory, a site root to crawl, or an arbitrary resource — a consequential ambiguity for a coverage tool.
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 pair of verbs (inventory, measure) applied to a specific resource class (external scripts/stylesheets) and a specific metric (Subresource Integrity coverage). An agent can distinguish this from csp_analysis or headers_analysis by the SRI framing, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling analysis tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the SRI-specific check rather than a general header or CSP scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.