Security-Use MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires elevated permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects on system performance, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a configuration mutation 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and the specific fields that can be modified. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like permission requirements, whether all parameters are optional (as indicated by required: []), what happens when parameters are omitted, or what the tool returns upon success/failure.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the same fields (sensitivity, patterns, rate limits) without providing additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'runtime sensor configuration', specifying what fields can be modified (detection sensitivity, patterns, rate limits). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_sensor_config' or 'configure_sensor' alternatives that might exist elsewhere.

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 like 'get_sensor_config' for reading configuration, or prerequisites such as needing admin permissions. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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