Code Review MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Run Semgrep scan' offers no insight into traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, execution time, or output format. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's operational characteristics.

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 only three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it omits critical information needed for tool understanding and usage.

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 (involving code scanning with parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what Semgrep is, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('files' and 'rulesDir'). Without explanation in the description, an agent cannot infer what 'files' should contain (e.g., file paths, code snippets) or what 'rulesDir' refers to (e.g., directory of Semgrep rule files). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Run Semgrep scan' restates the tool name and title with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. While it indicates the tool performs a Semgrep scan, it lacks specificity about what Semgrep is (e.g., a static analysis tool for code security) or what resources it acts upon (e.g., code files). This vagueness fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analysis.run_static' or 'tests.run_playwright'.

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 does not mention use cases (e.g., security auditing, code review), prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analysis.run_static' or 'code-review'. Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool.

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