Disable ModSecurity WAF for all domains to prevent interference with legitimate site functionality.
Disable ModSecurity (WAF) for all domains
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "disable_modsecurity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is a bare statement of action. It does not disclose the security impact, reversibility (enable_modsecurity exists), or any warnings about disabling WAF globally. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.
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 a single, focused sentence. Every word adds value: action, target, and scope. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, since this is a security-affecting mutation, it would benefit from noting reversibility or pointing to sibling tools for per-domain control. The current description lacks such context, making it incomplete for a security tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description's scope 'all domains' aligns with the lack of parameters, so no additional parameter-level detail is needed. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately complements the empty schema.
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 action 'Disable ModSecurity (WAF)' and the scope 'for all domains'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disable_modsecurity_domain (per-domain) by explicitly indicating global scope.
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 scope 'for all domains' implies a global operation, which differentiates it from disable_modsecurity_domain. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.