scan_mcp_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the action (security scoring) and output (risk levels, summary) but omits side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not robust for a read-like operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes return values. It covers the essential input and output for the tool's complexity. Could optionally mention prerequisites but not required.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter should be a 'parsed mcp_settings.json object (or just its mcpServers block)', which clarifies the expected shape beyond the generic 'object' type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Score' and clearly identifies the resource 'whole MCP stack' along with the input ('mcp_settings.json') and output ('per-server risk levels and a summary'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings which focus on individual tool trust.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when you have a parsed mcp_settings.json object or its mcpServers block. Does not provide explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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