intentfence_agent_risk_scanFree metadata-only scan of caller-supplied MCP tool definitions for missing schemas, unsafe annotations, approval binding, and cost boundaries. Does not execute tools or certify security.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | Yes | ||
| server_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds that it is 'metadata-only' and does not execute tools, consistent with annotations. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear.
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?
Two concise sentences; the first states the core function, the second adds critical limitations. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary action.
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 purpose and limitations but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of findings). Given no output schema, the agent needs to know the format or structure of the scan result. This is a notable gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only provides high-level context ('caller-supplied MCP tool definitions' for the 'tools' parameter). It does not explain individual parameters (server_name, tools) in detail, leaving an agent to infer from context.
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 action ('scan') and the resource ('caller-supplied MCP tool definitions'). It lists specific items checked (missing schemas, unsafe annotations, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on authorization or policy packs.
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 when to use this tool (to validate tool definitions) and includes a notable limitation ('does not execute tools or certify security'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from risk scanning to authorization, preflight checks, and specific data retrieval. Descriptions are detailed and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent 'intentfence_<descriptive_name>' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
10 tools is well-scoped for a security firewall server, covering a range of free and paid services without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers assessment, authorization, and data retrieval, but lacks tools for managing the firewall configuration itself (e.g., allowlist CRUD), leaving some gaps in lifecycle coverage.