Run a passive web-security scan of a URL (via Astur). Returns an A–F grade, a 0–100 score and findings mapped to OWASP WSTG/ASVS. Non-intrusive — no active probing of the target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute http(s) URL to scan, e.g. https://example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the scan is passive and non-intrusive with no active probing, which is the main safety concern an agent must know. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and side-effect details, so it stops short of full coverage.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by output shape and the safety qualifier. No filler and every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return values (grade, score, OWASP-mapped findings) and the passive nature, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only explicit routing against sibling tools is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is already documented as an absolute http(s) URL with an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('passive web-security scan of a URL') and even names the engine (Astur). It also summarizes the output (A–F grade, 0–100 score, OWASP WSTG/ASVS findings), making it clearly distinguishable from the many single-signal siblings like tls_posture or host_exposure.
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?
Usage is implied by 'passive web-security scan', and the 'non-intrusive — no active probing' note hints at when it is safe. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling recon tools and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that this is the broad-sweep tool rather than a per-signal check.
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.
