universal-brute-workpack

audit.collect

Collect audit run directory into an EvidenceBundle and gate file to package findings and enforce failure thresholds.

Instructions

Collect an existing audit runDir into an EvidenceBundle and gate file.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "audit.collect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runDir`	No
`maxFindings`	No
`failureThreshold`	No
`mainThreadSampleRate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions collecting into a bundle and gate file but does not disclose side effects, permissions, safety profile, or whether it modifies the input. The behavioral traits are severely under-specified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and avoids fluff. However, it is too minimal to be effective, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. No structural elements like sections or lists are used.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, output, or relationship to other tools like audit.run or audit.ingest_report, leaving critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (runDir, maxFindings, failureThreshold, mainThreadSampleRate) or their roles, adding no semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Collect' and the resource 'existing audit runDir' into an 'EvidenceBundle and gate file', which gives a good sense of the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit.ingest_report or audit.run, and the term 'runDir' is not fully defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended workflow among sibling audit tools. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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