Skip to main content
Glama
intruder-io

intruder-mcp

Official

create_target_tag

Add tags to Intruder.IO targets for organization and categorization. Specify target ID and tag name to label security assessment targets.

Instructions

    Add a tag to a target.

    Args:
        target_id: The ID of the target to add the tag to
        name: The name of the tag to add (max 40 characters)
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_idYes
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main MCP tool handler for 'create_target_tag'. It is registered via @mcp.tool() decorator and implements the tool logic by calling the IntruderAPI client to create the tag.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def create_target_tag(target_id: int, name: str) -> str:
        """
        Add a tag to a target.
    
        Args:
            target_id: The ID of the target to add the tag to
            name: The name of the tag to add (max 40 characters)
        """
        tag = api.create_target_tag(target_id=target_id, name=name)
        return f"Added tag '{tag.name}' to target {target_id}"
  • Helper function in IntruderAPI client that makes the HTTP request to the Intruder API to create a tag on a target, using TagsRequest and returning Tags.
    def create_target_tag(self, target_id: int, name: str) -> Tags:
        data = TagsRequest(name=name)
        return Tags(**self.client.post(f"{self.base_url}/targets/{target_id}/tags/", json=data.dict()).json())
  • Pydantic schemas for the tag creation: TagsRequest for input (name field) and Tags for output.
    class Tags(BaseModel):
        name: str = Field(..., max_length=40)
    
    class TagsRequest(BaseModel):
        name: str = Field(..., min_length=1, max_length=40)
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a tag' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether tags are unique or can be duplicated, error conditions (e.g., invalid target_id), or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting as a docstring might slightly hinder readability compared to plain prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses important context like error handling, return values, and sibling tool relationships. It meets the bare minimum for understanding but leaves the agent to guess about many operational aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'target_id' identifies the target to tag and 'name' is the tag name with a character limit (max 40 characters) not indicated in the schema. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain data types or validation rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add a tag to a target') with specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_target_tag' or 'list_tags', which would be helpful for disambiguation in a toolset focused on tag management.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., target must exist), exclusions, or comparison with related tools like 'delete_target_tag' or 'list_tags'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/intruder-io/intruder-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server