run_mcp_design_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It says 'Verifies' and 'Checks for...' suggesting a read-only analysis, but it does not disclose whether it modifies anything, what output it produces, prerequisites (like a running server), or side effects. This partial disclosure is insufficient for a scanning 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 a single, tightly packed sentence that begins with the main verb and resource, then enumerates key checks. Every clause contributes value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, expected prerequisites (e.g., projectRoot path requirements), or how strictMode changes behavior, leaving users without enough information to predict tool output or side effects.

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 only 50% (projectRoot has a description, strictMode does not). The tool description does not explain either parameter, especially 'strictMode,' leaving its effect ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 identifies the tool's verb ('Verifies') and resource ('design and implementation of MCP servers'), and it lists specific checks (tool definitions, schema validation, transport security, error handling). This distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like run_rest_api_scan or run_architecture_scan by focusing on MCP-specific aspects.

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 when to use this tool: when analyzing MCP server design and implementation. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the focus on MCP servers gives clear context relative to siblings, so it earns a 4.

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