Run the operator-configured MCP security scanner to detect vulnerabilities and return findings as evidence for engineering investigations.
Run the operator-configured MCP security scanner and return findings as evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the scanner is operator-configured rather than parameter-driven, and results come back as 'evidence'. It does not disclose scope, runtime cost, or failure behavior.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and the configured-scanner qualifier front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though one more clause on scope/usage would have earned its place.
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?
No output schema, an entirely undocumented required parameter, and no disambiguation from two sibling scan tools. For a tool that executes a scanner and returns findings, the description leaves too many invocation questions unanswered.
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?
One required parameter (server_path) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no example, no statement of whose server it is. With the schema carrying zero explanatory text, the description should have compensated and does not.
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?
States a specific verb (run) and resource (the operator-configured MCP security scanner) plus the outcome (findings as evidence). 'MCP security scanner' loosely separates it from siblings like code_security_scan and vulnerability_scan, but the description never explicitly says what class of target it scans, so an agent still has to guess between the three scan tools.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (code_security_scan, vulnerability_scan, diagnostics). The phrase 'operator-configured' hints that configuration must pre-exist, but that is not framed as a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.