Model Safety MCP

artifact_safety_report

Generate safety reports for machine learning model artifacts by scanning for unsafe serialization, malicious patterns, and risky packaging.

Instructions

Run the broadest available model artifact safety report.

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": "artifact_safety_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Run' and 'broadest available', but doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., scans for malware, checks for vulnerabilities), what permissions are needed, whether it's destructive, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's action and scope without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a safety scanning tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does, how to use the parameters, what the output entails, and how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters 'path' and 'url'. However, the description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they are for, how they relate to each other, or their expected formats. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('Run') and the resource ('model artifact safety report'), but is vague about what constitutes a 'safety report' and what 'broadest available' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'deep_model_inspect' or 'modelscan_scan', which likely perform similar safety inspections.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modelscan_scan' or 'picklescan_scan'. The phrase 'broadest available' implies it might be more comprehensive, but this is not explicit, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server