Scan a project for security risks by checking for exposed .env files and dependency vulnerabilities with npm audit.
Scan for security concerns: .env files at root, dependency vulnerabilities via npm audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does 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 lists the specific checks performed, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires network access (for npm audit), what it returns, or if it can modify files. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely runs external commands.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies the scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains what is scanned but not what the tool returns, whether it is safe to run without side effects, or how failures are reported. An agent could call it but would lack critical information to interpret the result 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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'cwd', which is described as 'Project root'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on how cwd affects the scan or any default behavior.
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 clearly states the verb 'Scan' and the resource 'security concerns', and specifies two concrete checks: .env files at root and dependency vulnerabilities via npm audit. This makes it easily distinguishable from siblings like check_tests or check_linting, which target different concerns.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_codebase or production_readiness, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but the context for when to choose it over similar security-related siblings is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.