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 effectively describes key behaviors: it modifies files ('Modifies requirements.txt or pyproject.toml'), specifies the action ('updating to a safe version'), and indicates the output ('Returns a diff of changes for review'). However, it misses details like error handling, permissions needed, or side effects, which would elevate the score.

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 implementation details and output. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies file modifications, and the third describes the return. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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 (modifying files to fix vulnerabilities) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, target files, and output format. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or dependencies, but it's adequate for the context provided.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 a detected dependency vulnerability'), the resource ('dependency vulnerability'), and the mechanism ('by updating to a safe version'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_fix_pr' (which creates a PR) and 'acknowledge_alert' (which acknowledges without fixing), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage when a vulnerability is detected and needs fixing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_fix_pr' (for PR-based fixes) or 'acknowledge_alert' (for non-fix actions). It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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