top10An OWASP Top 10 list with each category id, name, summary and the canonical URL. Lists: "web" (2021), "api" (2023), "llm" (LLM/GenAI applications 2025), "mobile" (2024). Use for awareness, mapping a finding to a category, or LLM-app threat modeling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Which Top 10 (default "web"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "list": "web"
+ },
+ {
+ "list": "llm"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety traits. The description adds that the tool returns canonical URLs and is for awareness, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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 content and purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys all necessary information.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (id, name, summary, URL) and appropriate use cases, making it fully 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 input schema has 100% coverage with one enum parameter described as 'Which Top 10 (default "web").' The description adds the specific years for each list (e.g., 'web' 2021) and mentions defaults beyond the schema, providing meaningful 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 it provides OWASP Top 10 lists for web, API, LLM, and mobile, each with id, name, summary, and URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific topic and use cases.
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 explicitly says 'Use for awareness, mapping a finding to a category, or LLM-app threat modeling,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the narrow scope and unique offering make implicit sense.
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.