Start SBOM generation for an image, directory, or other Syft source; returns a job ID so you can poll status until completion.
Start Syft SBOM generation (async — returns job_id immediately).
Poll get_job_status until completed.
Args: target: Image, directory, or other source accepted by Syft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. To its credit, it discloses the critical async contract: the tool returns a job_id immediately and requires polling. It says nothing about runtime expectations, failure modes for invalid targets, resource requirements, or whether jobs can be cancelled.
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?
The async behavior is stated up front and followed by the polling instruction, with no filler. The leftover 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly noisy but still readable.
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 tool is simple, with one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential workflow gap: the need to poll get_job_status. Only the error-handling and target-format details are thin.
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 must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It partially does so by giving examples (image, directory), but 'other source accepted by Syft' is circular and offers no concrete format guidance such as 'docker:alpine' or 'dir:/path'.
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 names a specific verb and resource: start Syft SBOM generation. It also states the async nature. It distinguishes this from get_job_status by describing the follow-up relationship, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling scan_licenses_and_vulns.
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 description gives a clear post-invocation workflow: it returns a job_id immediately, and you then poll get_job_status until completion. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over scan_licenses_and_vulns, nor does it list prerequisites such as whether the target must be accessible locally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.