trace-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it performs analysis ('track flow'), reports unsanitized flows with CWE IDs and fix suggestions, is framework-aware, and uses data flow tracing for accuracy. It does not mention performance aspects like execution time or resource usage, but covers the core behavior well for a security analysis tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a structured manner. Each sentence adds value: framework awareness, reporting details, and accuracy comparison. There is no redundant information, making it efficient and well-organized for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a security analysis tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains what the tool does, its framework support, reporting features, and accuracy. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of reports) and potential limitations (e.g., supported languages or file types), which would enhance completeness for agent invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'scope' interacts with frameworks or detailing the impact of 'include_sanitized'. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('track flow of untrusted data') and resources ('from sources to dangerous sinks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'more accurate than pattern-based scanning — traces actual data flow paths,' which differentiates it from tools like 'scan_security' or 'detect_antipatterns' that might use simpler methods.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for security analysis of data flows in web applications, with framework-aware capabilities for Express, Laravel, Django, and FastAPI. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'scan_security' or 'detect_antipatterns,' which might serve related but different purposes.

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