Audit a repository or directory against 16 Clean Architecture and security guardrails, detecting layer violations and leaked secrets before code reaches production.
Audits a repository or directory against 16 Clean Architecture & Security guardrails (TypeScript, Python, Golang, Rust, Secrets 2.0) in ~12ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Directory path to audit (defaults to current working directory) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavioral traits: the fixed rule count, supported languages, and a ~12ms performance characteristic. However, it never states that the audit is read-only/side-effect free, whether it writes a report, or what permissions it needs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core verb and scope lead, and the detail (languages, latency) trails.
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 simple one-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape unexplained (what an audit result looks like) and omits any read-only/destructive signal an agent needs to call it safely.
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% and the single optional 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Audits') and resource ('repository or directory') and quantifies scope (16 Clean Architecture & Security guardrails across five languages). This clearly distinguishes it from repoguard_fix and repoguard_diff, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. An agent could infer this is the detection step versus repoguard_fix, but nothing in the text states that relationship, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.