Detect persistence by scanning scheduled task autoruns. Optionally include SHA-1 hashes to verify entries.
Scan only scheduled tasks autoruns (fast subset).
{"success": bool, "entries": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hashes | No | Include SHA-1 hashes (-h) | |
| accept_eula | No | Accept EULA (stored once) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only conveys that this is a narrow/fast scan plus a return format. It says nothing about permissions, whether EULA acceptance is required before running (only buried in the schema), or other preconditions, leaving key operational traits undocumented.
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 in a single tight sentence with no filler. The added Return Format block is largely redundant with the existing output schema, so it does not fully earn its place, keeping this just below top marks.
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 a two-parameter scan tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape, so return values need not be re-explained. However, with no annotations it omits preconditions and when-to-use guidance, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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 both parameters (hashes, accept_eula) are already documented in the schema with their CLI flags. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 ('Scan ... scheduled tasks autoruns') and scopes it as a 'fast subset', which implicitly distinguishes it from the full sibling 'autorunsc'. An agent can tell it narrows the scan to scheduled tasks, though the contrast with autorunsc is only implied rather than named.
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 'only scheduled tasks' / 'fast subset' phrasing implies the use case (a quick targeted scan), but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or routing to/from the sibling autorunsc is provided. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.