mcp_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It conveys that the tool performs an audit (implying non-destructive analysis) and takes a local path, but it doesn't explicitly state whether it is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what output to expect.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and information-dense. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and target.

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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the main purpose and target types. It could mention return format or additional behavior, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 schema covers the single 'path' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying the target types: 'MCP server, codebase, or configuration file.' This goes beyond the schema's generic 'File or directory path to audit.'

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's function: 'Audit an MCP server, codebase, or configuration file against OWASP MCP Top 10 vulnerabilities.' It uses a specific verb (audit), identifies the resource types, and specifies the security standard, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_aibom and mcp_verify.

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 an audit against OWASP MCP Top 10 is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of the highest score.

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