Create a project-specific security checklist from OWASP Top 10 findings and detected stack to address vulnerabilities.
Generate a security checklist based on current project findings + OWASP Top 10 standards. Detects stack and tailors recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| stack | No |
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 mentions stack detection and tailoring, but does not state whether the tool performs read-only analysis, modifies any files, or requires specific permissions, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects.
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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundancy, though it could include a bit more parameter detail without becoming verbose.
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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description gives the gist but misses essential details: how to use cwd, whether stack is auto-detected or must be provided, and what the checklist contains or how it is returned. An agent would likely need to probe the tool to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining both parameters. It partially explains 'stack' (used for tailoring) but gives no meaning for 'cwd' and does not clarify if either parameter is optional or required. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter roles.
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 tool's action (generate) and resource (security checklist), and adds context (based on OWASP Top 10 and current project findings). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like check_security or audit_codebase, but the purpose is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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 implies this tool is for generating a checklist based on project context, but it does not specify when to prefer it over check_security or audit_codebase, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.