triage_summaryRuns a local security scan and returns a plain-English triage of what to fix first and why, so you can decide go/no-go before deploying.
Runs the same scan and returns a short plain-English triage: what to fix first and why. Good for a quick go/no-go before deploying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the project folder |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by characterizing the return: short, plain-English, prioritized as "what to fix first and why." It does not mention latency, size limits, or determinism of the text, but the output shape disclosure is substantive.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and the deploy-time use case are front-loaded in that order.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by describing the triage as a prioritized plain-English summary. The only gap is the unspecified relationship to scan_repo, which an agent would need to reason out.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents "path." The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 output ("returns a short plain-English triage: what to fix first and why") and implies a relationship to the sibling by saying it "runs the same scan." It stops short of naming scan_repo as the alternative, so the distinction from that sibling is inferred rather than stated.
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?
"Good for a quick go/no-go before deploying" gives a concrete usage context, which is more than nothing. But it never states when to prefer this over scan_repo, nor any exclusions (e.g., use the raw scan when you need details, not a summary).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.