Security-Use MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning and mapping but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., a report, pass/fail status, detailed findings), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a compliance-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific actions and supported frameworks. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from details), but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity of compliance checking (involving multiple frameworks and IaC scanning), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how findings are presented, whether it's idempotent, or any error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant operational context, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('path' and 'framework') with descriptions and options. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond the schema's note, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Check project against a compliance framework' with specific actions ('Scans IaC files and maps findings to compliance controls') and supported frameworks listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_iac' or 'detect_project' by focusing on compliance mapping rather than general scanning or detection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'scan_iac' or 'fix_iac' that might handle similar IaC-related tasks. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit direction.

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