Fetch a URL and scan what it serves for malicious behaviour. 17 attack patterns / 59 regex signatures across 4 severity levels — credential exfiltration, download-and-execute, prompt injection, command execution, seed-phrase harvesting and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Raw file URL to fetch and scan |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the scanning capabilities (17 attack patterns, 59 regex signatures) but does not disclose network behavior, potential side effects (e.g., what happens to the fetched content beyond scanning), or any rate limits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides specific, non-redundant detail about the tool's capability.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and scanning scope well. Missing are output format details (especially important given no output schema) and edge cases like non-malicious URLs.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'url' described as 'Raw file URL to fetch and scan'. The description adds value by specifying the scanning context (malicious behaviour), which is not present in the schema description. However, it does not elaborate on URL format expectations or constraints.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch and scan') and resource ('URL') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_url' (which presumably just fetches content) by emphasizing malicious behaviour detection.
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 (when a URL needs to be scanned for malicious behaviour) but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives. Among siblings, 'read_url' is a clear alternative for simple fetching, but this distinction is not stated.
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.
Most tools serve clearly distinct purposes: air quality, skill audit, country data, earthquakes, elevation, geocoding, holidays, URL reading, and web search. However, `audit_skill_text` and `audit_skill_url` both audit for malicious behavior, differing only in input type, which could cause slight confusion.
Tool names use a mix of snake_case and descriptive phrases without a strict verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (e.g., `geocode`, `audit_skill_text`, `read_url`), while others are nouns (e.g., `air_quality`, `earthquakes`). The naming is readable but inconsistent in style.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server that aggregates diverse free data and security services. Each tool serves a distinct and useful function, and the `paid_catalogue` tool properly manages the paid extension without bloating the main set.
The tool set covers a broad range of data types (environment, economic, geographic, security), but for each individual domain, coverage is shallow. For example, only current air quality is provided (no historical data), and skill auditing only returns a scan result (no detailed remediation). The set lacks update, delete, or drill-down operations per domain.