Write or append UTF-8 text files inside a WebSex engagement workspace to store scan notes, logs, and evidence artifacts for authorized pentesting.
Write or append a UTF-8 text file inside the WebSex engagement workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| append | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| engagement_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that content is UTF-8 text and that append mode exists, but it does not say whether the default write overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, whether directories are created, or what happens on path conflicts.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words and the core operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters it borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
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?
Given a mutation tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and siblings that could also write files, the definition is incomplete. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the lack of permission, overwrite, and path/engagement semantics leaves significant gaps.
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 0% for four parameters. The description only vaguely maps to append ('write or append') and content/workspace, but it never explains engagement_id, path format, content constraints, or the default append=false behavior.
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 (write/append), resource (UTF-8 text file), and scope (WebSex engagement workspace). It is clearly distinct from workspace_read/list/delete, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or distinguish from generic exec/bash tools that could also write files.
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 such as websex_bash, websex_python, or websex_execute, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the engagement exist?) or constraints are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.