resultFull result by scan uuid (keyless).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Detailed scan data including requests and resources | |
| meta | No | Additional metadata | |
| page | No | Page information including title, domain, IP | |
| task | No | Task metadata and configuration | |
| stats | No | Scan statistics |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "uuid": "12345678-1234-1234-1234-123456789012"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Full scan result details",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Detailed scan data including requests and resources",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "meta": {
+ "description": "Additional metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Page information including title, domain, IP",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "stats": {
+ "description": "Scan statistics",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "task": {
+ "description": "Task metadata and configuration",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds 'keyless' which may imply no API key needed, but is not elaborated. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.
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 extremely concise at four words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary, with no fluff.
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 parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimal. It doesn't describe what the 'full result' includes or any edge cases. Adequate but not thorough.
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 0%, so description must add meaning. The description clarifies that the uuid parameter is a 'scan uuid', which is not evident from the schema alone. This adequately explains the parameter's purpose.
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 tool returns a full result identified by scan uuid. 'Keyless' hints at authentication, but is somewhat ambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are named 'result'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using this over other scan-related tools.
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.