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 adds useful context beyond basic functionality by describing the two modes (suggest vs. apply) and the return format (before/after code for review). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether changes are reversible, which are important for a mutation tool like this.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by operational details in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with optional auto-apply) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and behavior but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or prerequisites. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to fully guide an agent.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage tips). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Fix an Infrastructure as Code security misconfiguration'), the resource involved (IaC files), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it addresses security misconfigurations rather than general analysis or other security tasks like 'scan_iac' or 'fix_vulnerability'. It includes the verb 'fix' and details the scope of fixing IaC security issues.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by specifying it's for fixing IaC security misconfigurations and mentions the default behavior (suggest a fix) versus alternative (apply automatically). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives like 'create_fix_pr' or 'scan_iac', which could help differentiate further.

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