Lists every security check the scan performs and the requirements for each, so you can see which exposure types are covered before running a read-only scan against your MCP server.
List the checks rolefence-scan runs and what each needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a read-only enumeration and that each entry includes its requirements, which is useful. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the check list is static versus configuration-dependent.
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 no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the qualifier about what each check needs follows immediately.
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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema describing the return shape, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. It could add one clause on when to prefer it over a direct scan, but nothing essential is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The phrase "what each needs" usefully hints that returned entries carry their own input requirements.
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 names a specific verb ("List") and resource ("the checks rolefence-scan runs") and adds that it returns what each check needs, which is more informative than a bare list. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the scan_* siblings, but the discovery framing makes its distinct role apparent.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step to run before invoking scan_mcp or scan_local_program, but the description never says so, nor does it state when not to use it. No explicit alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.