Determines bot-wall verdicts, vendor, and evidence codes offline from captured HTTP response status, headers, and body samples, with no network access.
Offline classification of a captured HTTP response (status, headers, body sample). No network. Returns verdict, vendor, and evidence codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| headers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool makes no network calls and returns verdict, vendor, and evidence codes. It does not explain behavior for a null status, error conditions, or the set of possible verdicts, which are important gaps for a classifier.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the key behavioral constraint and the return values. No wasted words.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the primary documentation. It says what is returned at a high level but does not enumerate verdict values, describe evidence codes, or cover null/error handling, leaving meaningful gaps for a classification 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does mention status, headers, and body sample, mapping to all three parameters and clarifying that body is only a sample. It still omits format details, such as the shape of headers or why status is nullable despite being required.
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: offline classification of a captured HTTP response, with the inputs it consumes and the outputs it produces. 'No network' implicitly distinguishes it from probe_url, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'offline ... No network' implies this should be used on already-captured responses rather than live probing, which hints at the probe_url alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.