scan_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool scans for specific vulnerabilities, scores descriptions, and returns a rating. It does not disclose whether it modifies files or requires network access, but overall it provides substantial behavioral insight.

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 concise, with every sentence serving a purpose. It starts with the main action, lists what it checks, and ends with when to use it. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, checks, and output (security rating with recommendations). There are no apparent gaps.

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 single parameter 'target' is described in the schema as 'GitHub repo URL or local directory path'. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool scans MCP servers for security vulnerabilities, description quality, and architecture issues, listing specific checks and a rating system. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_agent_security' by focusing on server security rather than agent security.

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 a clear use case: 'Use when evaluating whether an MCP server is safe to install or deploy.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like the sibling tool.

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