IA-QA — 130+ QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents

prompt_injection_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan user input or prompts for common prompt injection patterns. Detects system prompt overrides, jailbreak attempts, role manipulation, encoding tricks, delimiter attacks (chat-template tags <|im_start|>/[INST]/<<SYS>> AND fake role headers imitating markdown or chat separators: "### System:", "--- SYSTEM ---", "---BEGIN SYSTEM OVERRIDE---", "--- SYSTEM:"), template/interpolation injection ({{...}}, ${...}), and context-exfiltration attempts ("repeat everything above"). A match inside quoted or fenced text (documentation citing a payload) is reported one severity level lower and marked quoted — never suppressed, since an LLM reading the document as data can still follow a quoted instruction. A quote preceded by a live imperative ("output the following: ...") keeps its full severity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The user input or prompt to scan for injection patterns
`sensitivity`	No	Detection sensitivity (default: medium)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`detections`	No
`risk_level`	No
`sensitivity`	No
`input_length`	No
`detections_count`	No
`quoted_detections`	No
`injection_detected`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / notes
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / quoted_detections
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedJun 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "detections": {},
+  "detections_count": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "injection_detected": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "input_length": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "risk_level": {},
+  "sensitivity": {}
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses nuanced behavior: how quoted/fenced content is handled (severity reduction, never suppressed) and that live imperatives keep full severity, providing extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed and informative but somewhat lengthy with examples. It is well-structured as a single paragraph explaining purpose and behavior, though it could be slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, but the description implies the output includes severity levels and detection results. It covers the essential context for using the tool, though it stops short of explicit return format details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('input' and 'sensitivity'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: scanning user input for prompt injection patterns, and lists specific categories (system prompt overrides, jailbreak attempts, etc.). It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from typical text processing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the tool is for security scanning of user-provided text, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the intent is clear enough for typical use cases.

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

All IA-QA — 130+ QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?