Security dashboard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that scan='full' actually launches the configured servers, that no tool is invoked during that process, and that a confirmation flag plus user consent is required. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe latency, failure handling, or what happens to already-running servers.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then packs the mode semantics into short, dense sentences with no filler. The long enumeration in the opening sentence is justified by the many dashboard sections, though it does make the first sentence heavy.

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?

For an interactive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers what the dashboard shows, the two scan modes, and the safety gate. The remaining gap is project_dir, which is undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent unable to know whether it must supply a working directory.

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 carry the parameter burden. It explains scan='config' vs scan='full' and the confirm_launch=true requirement well, which compensates for two of three parameters, but project_dir is never mentioned and its purpose is left entirely to inference.

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 and resource ('Opens the interactive mcp-security-guard dashboard') and then enumerates exactly what the surface contains: scores/grades per server, severity-filterable findings, OWASP MCP Top 10 breakdown, permission rules, pin buttons. An agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with text-only siblings such as audit_mcp_config, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance: scan='config' reads files only, scan='full' starts servers and requires confirm_launch=true, with an explicit 'ask the user first' instruction. What is missing is routing guidance against sibling tools (e.g., when to use audit_mcp_config or list_mcp_servers instead of opening the dashboard).

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