Audit any command or tool action for security risks and loop patterns before execution. Blocks dangerous or repetitive operations using command and context analysis.
Security and loop-detection guardrail before running risky commands or tool calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Command line or tool action to audit | |
| context | No | Working directory or intent context |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a 'guardrail' metaphorically but does not state what happens when a risk or loop is detected, whether it blocks, warns, returns a verdict, or has side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a safety-related 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's role and timing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain how the agent uses the guardrail's result, what the tool returns, and how to interpret it. None of this is present, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's end-to-end behavior.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond pointing at 'risky commands or tool calls,' which loosely maps to the command parameter but adds little for the context parameter.
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 identifies the tool as a security and loop-detection guardrail used before risky commands or tool calls, which clearly communicates a distinct role. It lacks a crisp imperative verb, but the purpose is clear and it differs meaningfully from the sibling decide/status/compact 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?
The phrase 'before running risky commands or tool calls' gives clear contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is reasonably unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.