scan_mcp_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses tool behavior (scans for vulnerabilities, returns grade and recommendations) but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects (e.g., updates baseline file is mentioned in param but not in behavior), or requires specific permissions. For a tool named 'scan', read-only is implied but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key vulnerability categories. No wasted words, every part adds information. Structure is optimal for quick understanding.

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?

The description covers main purpose, scanning categories, and output format (grade A-F and recommendations). Given 4 parameters all described in schema and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gap: does not mention scope or limitations (e.g., whether it scans dependencies recursively), but overall adequate.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of the manifest parameter (poisoning indicators) and update_baseline parameter (writes to .mcp-security-baseline.json). It also clarifies verbosity levels minimally. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it scans MCP server source code for security vulnerabilities (overly broad permissions, missing input validation, etc.) and returns a grade with recommendations. This is specific to MCP servers, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_security or scan_project.

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?

Description implies use when scanning an MCP server's security, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools such as scan_security, scan_project, or check_package. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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