Retrieve full details for a cybersecurity module, including its description, available tools, and management commands, to plan or run security workflows.
Get full details about a module: description, all tools, and management commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes | Module name (e.g. "web", "pwn", "forensics"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the module description, its tools, and management commands, but says nothing about unknown-module behavior or result size.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and enumerates the payload; nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
With one documented parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema that carries the return structure, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. Only the installed/prerequisite condition is left implicit.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples ('web', 'pwn', 'forensics'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Get') and resource ('module') plus the shape of what comes back (description, tools, management commands). It is distinguishable from sibling get_tool_info by operating on a module rather than a tool, though it never explicitly names that sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. must the module be installed first?), and no routing toward alternatives like get_tool_info or list_tools. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.