HuntX

Official

by IAZENT

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: HTTP logging/replay, IDOR fuzzing (with three variants for different contexts), recon data retrieval, vulnerability scans (XSS, SQLi, SSRF, SSTI, CORS, etc.), and triage management. Even similar functions like idor_fuzz vs idor_fuzz_url differ by input source, and subdomain_takeover_check vs batch differ by scope. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow predictable group-specific patterns (http_*, recon_*, triage_*, auth_test_*), but there is inconsistency across groups: some use verb_noun (scan_secrets, http_replay) while others use noun_verb (cors_scan, sqli_scan). Overall snake_case and readable, but not a single uniform convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the server is substantially oversized. While each tool is justified within its subdomain, the total count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The breadth suggests a monolithic design that could be decomposed into smaller, focused servers.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the full security testing lifecycle: recon (endpoints, params, IPs, subdomains, trigger), scanning (all major OWASP categories), HTTP request interception and replay, auth vulnerability testing (JWT, OAuth), and finding triage with create/read/update operations. No obvious dead ends or missing critical capabilities for the stated purpose.
Average 3.7/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists recent requests but does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, data scope (e.g., session vs. persistent), or any limitations like pagination. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety cues.
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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it lacks depth. No unnecessary words, so it earns a 4 for conciseness.
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?
With an output schema present, return format is covered. The description is sufficient for a basic list operation, but it leaves ambiguity around 'recent' (time scope) and does not explain the purpose of target_id or when to use this tool. Given the simplicity and schema completeness, it is adequate but not complete, scoring 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and target_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and since the description doesn't introduce any nuance, it stays at 3.
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 'List recent logged HTTP requests' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (logged HTTP requests). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like http_search, which might also list requests. Since it names the verb and object clearly, it scores 4.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include http_search and http_get, but the description does not mention any exclusions or conditions. The agent has no clue if http_list is for a quick overview or if http_search is more appropriate for filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists what is checked but does not mention request patterns, potential side effects, or any safety considerations. It fails to convey important behavioral traits like whether it makes network requests or how aggressive the scan is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.
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 has 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the scan scope but does not cover how the scan is executed, how scope_include/exclude affect results, or any additional context about expected findings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about the overall scan but does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.
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 tool scans for common misconfigurations and lists specific checks (e.g., .git, .env, API keys). It is sufficiently specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like scan_git_secrets or scan_secrets.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling scan tools (e.g., scan_secrets, security_headers_scan, error_page_scan), the description lacks explicit context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits; annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
The description is minimal and does not address usage context or any preconditions, but the output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, and the tool description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering,' adding little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves endpoints/URLs for a domain and mentions optional filtering, distinguishing it from similar recon tools.
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, such as recon_subdomains or recon_domain_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it makes any modifications. The burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to provide such transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is appropriately brief for the simplicity of the operation.
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?
The description captures the core function but omits context such as how results are returned or interpreted. Since an output schema exists (as noted in context), the description does not need to explain return formats, but it still lacks depth about the operation's scope or special conditions. It is minimally complete but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are minimal but cover each parameter (scope_include, scope_exclude, target_id, subdomains). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: checking multiple subdomains for takeover opportunities, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on batch subdomain takeover detection.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool logs requests, but it does not mention important traits such as whether it makes real external requests, authentication requirements, potential side effects on the target, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a network-touching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and the logging side effect, making it easy to parse and remember.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a rich output schema and 7 parameters, the description is too sparse to give an agent enough context for correct invocation. It does not explain the request execution semantics, how logging interacts with the parameters (e.g., scope_include/scope_exclude), or any constraints or permissions. The tool is more complex than a trivial filter, and the description underdelivers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it merely gives an overview. This meets the minimum viable bar but does not enhance understanding of any of the 7 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Send an HTTP request') and resource ('HTTP request'), and adds the logging behavior ('and log it for later querying') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like http_get that likely only fetch. The purpose is unambiguous and directly differentiates from tools like http_replay, http_search, and http_list.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as http_get, http_replay, or http_search. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling names. This is minimal guidance, comparable to the update_drive example which scored 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'manually save a finding' without explaining side effects, idempotency, required authentication, or what happens on conflict. Overly brief for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, clearly states the action. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters)Skip Ratings, no annotations to convey behavioral context, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain when to use it, what happens on save (e.g., does it create a new record or update?), or any side effects. Lacks completeness for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, but that's acceptable given full schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (save) and resource (a finding) with the scope
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus the sibling triage tools (e.g., triage_update, triage_list). It implies manual save, but there's no guidance on circumstances or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention that this is a security testing tool that sends network requests to the target, which could be intrusive or require authorization. It also doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, whether it makes multiple requests, or the impact on the target. The description only lists techniques without behavioral context.
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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a list of techniques. It's well-structured with a list, making it easy to scan. No redundant information, each line adds value. It earns a 4 for efficiency and clarity, though it could be slightly more detailed on usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a security tool that makes network requests), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., authorization to test), potential side effects (e.g., sending requests to targets), or what constitutes a 'positive' result. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't provide enough behavioral context for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema: the schema already explains 'authorize_url', 'redirect_uri', and 'state'. However, the description's list of tests (path traversal, etc.) gives some context on how redirect_uri is used, which adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tests OAuth redirect_uri for open redirect and CSRF vulnerabilities, and it lists specific bypass techniques tested. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_redirect_scan (which likely tests general open redirects) and auth_test_jwt (which tests JWTs). The verb is specific and the resource is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear sense of what the tool does and lists the techniques it covers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that open_redirect_scan might be for simpler open redirect tests, or that this tool is specifically for OAuth flows. There's no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs DNS lookups, passive recon, or returns specific IP types (IPv4/IPv6), nor any potential side effects. The description is minimal and offers no additional context beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose immediately without wasted words.
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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., domain must be already known), expected output format beyond what the schema might provide, or any dependencies on prior recon steps. For a simple lookup, this is borderline acceptable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (domain) is fully described in the input schema with an example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (IP addresses), and the context (associated with a target domain). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like recon_subdomains (which likely retrieves subdomains) and recon_endpoints (which likely retrieves endpoints).
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. It only says 'get IP addresses,' which implies usage but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., recon_domain_summary might also provide IPs). The agent has no basis to choose this over other recon tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Get subdomains discovered' – it doesn't clarify whether this is passive (e.g., reading existing results) or active (triggering a scan), whether it has rate limits, caching, or what it does with the domain. For a recon tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, perfectly concise.
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?
For a simple read-only recon tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient. However, it doesn't clarify any behavioral aspects like whether this performs active discovery or just retrieves cached results. Given no annotations, it could use a bit more context, but given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing extra. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Get subdomains discovered for a target domain.' It specifies the resource (subdomains) and the object (target domain), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like recon_endpoints or recon_params by focusing specifically on subdomains.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling recon tools (recon_endpoints, recon_params, recon_domain_summary), the description does not mention when to prefer this over others or any exclusions. Implicitly, it's for subdomain enumeration, but that's not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says it gets live URLs. It does not disclose whether this involves active scanning, network requests, potential side effects, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the core action and target resource efficiently.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks guidance on expected behavior or when to use it. More context about the recon process or side effects would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single `domain` parameter with 100% coverage. The description only restates it as "target domain" and adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves "live web URLs (HTTP endpoints)" for a specified domain, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling recon tools like recon_subdomains and recon_ips by focusing specifically on HTTP endpoints.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to choose recon_web_targets over sibling tools such as http_list, http_search, or recon_endpoints, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a finding's status', which implies mutation but does not mention effects, required permissions, idempotency, or valid status values. Minimal context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb and target. It is concise and structured effectively.
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?
The tool is simple with two fully described parameters and an output schema, so the one-sentence description covers the core action. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('The new status value' and 'The finding to update'), so the description adds no extra semantic value. Schema coverage is 100%, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource 'a finding's status', clearly stating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling read-oriented tools like triage_get and triage_list by indicating a mutation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as triage_save or triage_list. The description does not provide usage context, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the type of testing performed (various Origin headers) but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether it sends requests, potential side effects, or if it is read-only. This leaves some ambiguity about its execution behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences without extraneous content. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's function.
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?
The description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but lacks details on expected output/return values, how parameters influence the scan, and any prerequisites or dependencies. This leaves some gaps in the overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for parameters are minimal (e.g., 'URL to test', 'HTTP method'), and the tool description does not add further explanation. It does not clarify the purpose or interaction of parameters like target_id or scope_exclude/include, limiting understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it scans for CORS misconfigurations and specifies the types of tests performed (reflected origins, null origin acceptance, wildcard with credentials), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other scanning tools.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, without indicating scenarios where it is preferred or how it compares to other scanners.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does meaningfully disclose that the tool wraps `nuclei -u <url> -as -json`, parses output into findings, and depends on nuclei being installed. However, it does not mention side effects such as network requests made to the scanned target, runtime expectations, or implications of automatic-scan mode.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded: it states the main action first, then provides the exact command behavior, output handling, and a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a well-covered input schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter or return details. It supplies key external dependency and command-wrapper context. It falls slightly short by not explaining when the agent should use this tool instead of the specialized sibling scan tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter semantics are already well covered by the input schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description only adds context around the `url` parameter and the JSON output behavior, but it does not explain tags, scope filtering, severity filters, or extra_args beyond what the schema already provides.
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 tool scans a URL using projectdiscovery/nuclei with automatic-scan. It names a specific verb, resource, and tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scanners such as sqli_scan, xss_scan, or ssrf_scan.
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 choose this general-purpose nuclei scan over the many sibling scanners. It mentions the prerequisite that nuclei must be installed and in PATH, but that is not sufficient usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it offers nothing beyond the tool name: no error behavior, no not-found semantics, no auth or scoping details, and no response hints. For a tool that reads a single record, the description is minimally sufficient at best and provides no value over renaming.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Seven words, one idea, no filler. Every piece — verb, object, and identification method — carries semantic weight and the purpose is front-loaded. This is textbook, maximally tight writing for a trivial tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with just one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (so no need to document return values), the description covers the essentials. The only gap is clarifying how this differs from triage_list and triage_summary given the sibling set, but for a simple get-by-ID this is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage ("The finding ID to look up"), the schema fully documents the sole parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
"Get a single finding by ID" uses a specific verb (Get), a clear resource (finding), and scoping (single, by ID). The word "single" implicitly contrasts with the sibling triage_list, though it never explicitly names an alternative or explains the distinction, keeping it just below the best examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated. From the description and the required finding_id parameter, an agent can infer this tool is for fetching one record when an ID is known, but there is no "when to use this vs. triage_list/triage_summary" guidance or any exclusion criteria. This lands at baseline 'implied usage.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'replay' without explaining that this likely sends a real network request, whether it mutates state on the target, what side effects occur, or how modifications affect the outgoing request. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that may issue live HTTP traffic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately communicates the key feature (optional modifications). Every word contributes to the tool's understanding, with no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool has five parameters and an output schema, and the schema descriptions cover parameter meanings well. However, the description does not mention how a request_id is obtained or how replay relates to logging tools like http_list/http_search, and it lacks important behavioral context around live request execution. The description is adequate but leaves clear contextual gaps for an agent deciding to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% since all five parameters have individual descriptions (request_id, target_id, modifications, scope_include, scope_exclude). The description adds only the phrase 'optional modifications,' which the schema already captures. It provides no additional semantic meaning beyond the structured metadata, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Replay') with a resource ('previously logged request') and a distinct modifier ('with optional modifications'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like http_send or http_get, which send fresh requests rather than replaying logged ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'previously logged request' implies this tool is for reusing an earlier captured request, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like http_search, http_list, or http_send. It does not provide exclusions or mention a clear decision process, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of side effects (e.g., does it trigger new recon?), data freshness, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but this is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of any fluff. It front-loads the purpose without wasting words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (which likely explains the summary structure) and full parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a summary tool. It lacks explicit mention of what data is included, but this is likely covered by the output schema. The description is sufficient but could be enhanced by noting whether the summary is real-time or cached.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'domain' parameter with a clear example and type. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'summary of all recon data' and scopes it to a 'domain'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recon_subdomains or recon_endpoints, which are more focused. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for a high-level overview of recon data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other recon tools or mention any exclusions. It could benefit from saying 'use this for an overview before drilling into specific recon areas' but the intent is inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'discovered' entails. The presence of an output schema helps but does not cover behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, highly efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present) and high schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not provide any context about when this is useful or what 'discovered' implies, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent navigating many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the 'domain' parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('discovered query parameters') scoped to a 'target domain'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling recon tools like recon_endpoints or recon_ips, which focus on other aspects of recon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when query parameters are needed for a domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly communicates that the tool scans commit history and uses trufflehog, but it does not disclose whether remote repositories are cloned, whether authentication is needed, or whether any state is written. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two short sentences state the action and the underlying scanner without redundant details. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is mostly sufficient. The main weakness is the lack of comparison to sibling tools like scan_secrets, but the core behavior and scope are adequately described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented by the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning to repo_url, target_id, scope_include, or scope_exclude beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Scan a git repository for leaked secrets in commit history.' It also names the engine (trufflehog) and the types of secrets it finds, which clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from generic secret scanners such as the sibling scan_secrets.
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 says what the tool does but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like scan_secrets or other recon/scanner tools. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative guidance, so the agent has to infer the usage context from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation on a logged request, but it does not mention what happens for missing IDs, the exact fields returned, or any potential side effects, though the output schema presumably covers return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and target resource. It contains no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently captures the essential context. The one required parameter and clear scope make it a complete enough definition for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, request_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'The request ID to look up.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly aligns with the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single logged HTTP request'. This distinguishes it from siblings like http_list, http_search, and http_replay, which handle different or broader operations.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use http_get versus the many sibling tools such as http_search, http_list, or http_replay. The description implies a lookup operation but does not state explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search behavior and fields searched, but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately clarifying the scope of the search. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with all parameters documented in the schema and an output schema exists. The description sufficiently conveys what it does, though it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it relative to siblings or notes on behavior (which are handled in other dimensions). Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool searches past HTTP requests, with specific fields covered (URL, request body, response body). This distinguishes it from siblings like http_list (which likely lists requests) and http_replay (which replays them).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys that this is a full-text search tool for past requests, implying it should be used when searching rather than listing or retrieving. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it has clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It transparently states that payloads are injected and redirects to external domains are checked, but it does not disclose side effects such as active network requests, typical payload count, or any rate/scope considerations beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two crisp sentences cover purpose and mechanism with zero filler. The information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for an active vulnerability scanner with a rich output schema; it explains the key behavior without restating schema. It does not mention scope filtering behavior, but the output schema and schema parameter docs cover much of the remaining context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds minor value by explaining the role of URL parameters in the scan, but does not go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Scan for') and resource ('open redirect vulnerabilities'), and clarifies the mechanism by injecting redirect payloads. The focus on open redirects distinguishes it from sibling ssrf_scan, sqli_scan, and other vulnerability scans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when open redirects are suspected, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No comparisons to sibling scans are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior: sending N concurrent requests to the same URL and comparing status codes, response lengths, and success/failure. However, with no annotations provided, it does not mention potential side effects of concurrent requests (especially against mutating endpoints) or any rate-limit/safety considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise explanation of the detection mechanism. No repetition of schema fields or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 8-parameter schema at 100% coverage and an output schema that can describe return values, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how it detects race conditions. It lacks explicit side-effect warnings and usage guidance, but the core selection and invocation context is sufficiently complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context around 'url' and 'concurrency' by explaining that requests are sent concurrently to the same URL, but it does not clarify target_id, scope_include/scope_exclude, or header/body behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Test for race conditions') and clearly explains the mechanism: sending concurrent requests and comparing responses for differential behavior. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling security scanners such as sqli_scan, xss_scan, and idor_fuzz.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case—race condition/TOCTOU detection—is implied by the description, but there are no explicit statements about when to choose this over http_send, http_get, or other scanners. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, ordering, pagination, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core operation and filter capability efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low tool complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete. It only lacks explicit sibling guidance and any mention of default behavior beyond the schema defaults, but those are available elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented including defaults and example values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'filters,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('findings'), and mentions optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like triage_get (single finding), triage_summary (aggregate), and triage_save/triage_update (writes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the basic use case: list findings, optionally filtered. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related triage tools or mention any exclusions/prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully additive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scanning process (using gitleaks/trufflehog) and the type of files it scans (directory or file). However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files, default permissions, or rate limits). It is a scanning tool, so destructive behavior is unlikely, but the description does not explicitly state it is read-only or what safety guarantees exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences contain useful information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds the tool choice detail. No fluff or unnecessary explanation. Optimally sized for quick reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the operation scope (filesystem path, backend selection) and the purpose (finding secrets). The description avoids overwhelming detail while providing enough context for the agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it. The lack of side-effect or usage limitations is covered under behavioural aspects, but overall it's adequately complete for a scanning tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, and parameters like 'path' (directory or file) and 'backend' (gitleaks/trufflehog) are already thoroughly described. The tool description adds meaning by stating the goal (detecting leaked secrets) and that it handles 'hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens, and credentials', but it does not provide deeper insight into the parameters beyond the schema. Since the schema already has solid descriptions, the description adds little marginal value, resulting in a baseline of 3, but the slight extra context about file scanning type and credential types justifies a 4.
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 tool scans a filesystem path for leaked secrets, using gitleaks or trufflehog. It specifies the verb (scan) and resource (filesystem path), and mentions the types of secrets (API keys, tokens, credentials). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'scan_git_secrets', though the 'filesystem path' phrasing implies a broader scope vs. git-specific scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly indicates when to use the tool: to scan a directory or file for secrets. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the description's focus on filesystem paths and the existence of 'scan_git_secrets' implies it's for non-git scans. The context is clear enough, but without an explicit 'when-not-to-use' or 'use this tool when...' statement, it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately describes the operation as a read-only check and details the technical mechanism (dangling CNAME checks) and scope (S3, GitHub Pages, Heroku). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, network behavior, rate limits, or what constitutes a successful output, which could be useful for the agent.
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 two sentences long and immediately front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence is short and direct, and the second adds technical precision by naming the technologies involved. It earns its place without wasteful clauses, though it could be argued it is slightly less dense than the absolute most optimal examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool's low complexity (simple check), the presence of an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers the necessary context for an agent to use it correctly. It explains the 'what' and the 'how', and the existence of a separate batch sibling implies that usage logic is delegated there. No critical gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters ('subdomain', 'target_id', 'scope_exclude', 'scope_include') have descriptions in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description text itself does not add extra clarity beyond what the schema already provides, and the parameters are straightforward for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('a subdomain for takeover opportunities'). It clearly defines the scope by mentioning 'dangling CNAME records pointing to unclaimed external services', which clearly distinguishes its function from siblings like `subdomain_takeover_check_batch` (handled separately).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage by clearly stating what it does ('Checks for dangling CNAME records') and provides context by giving examples of external services. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the batch counterpart, the context is quite clear. It misses explicit exclusion guidance but covers the 'when to use' part well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool sends the same request with each auth context and compares responses to detect bypass, which is core behavior. However, it does not describe output format, response-comparison criteria, side effects such as request volume, or any rate-limiting or scoping behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, and every sentence contributes value. It names the class, explains the mechanism, and identifies the vulnerability being tested without unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core use case and mechanism are clear, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. Optional parameters like candidate_ids, scope_exclude, scope_include, and role_hierarchy are schema-documented but not tied into the narrative, so the description is complete for the main workflow but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about role-based comparison and privilege escalation, but it does not add meaningful syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: test the same resource with different auth contexts and compare responses to detect cross-role access control bypass. It explicitly labels this as the 'vertical BOLA / privilege-escalation test,' which clearly distinguishes it from horizontal BOLA fuzzing siblings like idor_fuzz.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly frames when to use this tool: when you want to verify whether a lower-privilege user can access a higher-privilege resource. It does not explicitly name idor_fuzz or idor_fuzz_url as alternatives, but the vertical-vs-horizontal distinction implies the appropriate usage boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool subprocess-wraps reconftw.sh and writes into the Recon/<domain>/ layout. However, it does not cover broader behavioral context such as whether the scan is long-running, whether it can be aborted, what side effects/failures may occur, or how results are actually returned beyond writing files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two sentences that clarify the subprocess wrapper and output-layout side effect. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow and downstream integration. It could add explicit guidance on long-running/high-impact modes or error handling, but the existing combination of description and schema is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for mode, domain, dry_run, timeout, and scope parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a reconFTW scan against a domain.' It clearly identifies the tool as the scan trigger and distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools by explaining it subprocess-wraps reconftw.sh and writes to Recon/<domain>/ layout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies clear usage context: run it to produce fresh reconFTW output for recon_bridge-related tools to query immediately afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this when you need to generate new findings, not when reading existing results,' but the workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what headers are checked, which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not disclose potential side effects like sending HTTP requests, impact on the target, or any rate limits. This is a slight gap for a scan tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a front-loaded main purpose and a compact list of checked headers. No superfluous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema, return value details are not needed. The description covers the tool's essential function and scope. It slightly lacks context about the scan's network side effects, but this is implied. Full parameter coverage and output schema make it fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific context, but the schema fully documents each parameter. The description's mention of 'other security headers' is not parameter-related.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Scan for missing or misconfigured security headers' with a specific verb and resource. It lists specific headers (CSP, HSTS, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like cors_scan, misconfig_scan, and error_page_scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for discovering missing or misconfigured security headers. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of the tool name and description makes its usage obvious relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the injection of math-evaluation probes ({{7*7}}, ${7*7}), the check for '49' in the response, and detection of template engine error signatures. This provides a clear behavioral model, though it stops short of noting request side-effects or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded. The first states the high-level purpose, and the second details the detection technique. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a scanner with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers core behavior and detection logic. It lacks explicit statements about scope handling or safety, but the parameter schema and output schema fill most gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds general context about injecting probes into request parameters but does not explain individual parameters or their semantics beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as scanning a URL for Server-Side Template Injection, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling vulnerability scanners by naming the exact vulnerability class and describing the detection mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SSTI detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sqli_scan or xss_scan. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with other scanners, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (counts) but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The output description adds some transparency, but fails to address broader behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief summary of output. No filler or irrelevant details. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context—what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks usage alternatives and deeper behavioral notes, but these are partially covered in other dimensions. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward summarization tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (target_id states 'The target to summarize.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not elaborate on what constitutes a target or how to format the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (per-target summary of all findings), and the specific output (counts by status, vuln_class, and confidence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like triage_get and triage_list by focusing on aggregated counts rather than individual findings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose inherently conveys usage: use when you need a summary of findings for a target. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate. Lack of explicit 'when not to use' prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the exact manipulations performed (e.g., stripping signature, using public key as HMAC secret, path traversal in kid) and flags weak-secret brute-force as opt-in and slow. It does not mention potential side effects like sending attack traffic to the target, but the core test behavior is well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then organized as a numbered list of checks. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'opt-in, slow' note is precise and useful with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex tool with 11 parameters and multiple attack modes, the description covers the essential behavioral checks and the optional slow brute-force path. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and parameter specifics are fully covered by the schema. Slight gaps remain around prerequisites such as endpoint availability or required setup for the public-key test, but overall the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—mostly reinforcing that weak secrets are opt-in and slow, which the schema already states. It does not add syntax, formatting, or usage nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Test JWT for manipulation vulnerabilities', giving a specific verb, resource, and security-testing scope. It enumerates four distinct attack checks (alg:none, RS256→HS256, kid injection, weak secret brute-force), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_test_oauth_redirect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes when to use the tool: against a JWT-protected endpoint to test for known manipulation flaws. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the enumerated attack types and 'JWT-protected endpoint' context provide clear use-case guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool actively 'triggers errors with bad input' and checks for stack traces, debug info, and internal paths, so the agent knows it is an active scan with observable request side effects. It does not mention request volume or authorization requirements, but the core active behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a front-loaded headline plus a concise explanation of how the scan works. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Combined with the full input schema and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and mechanics for an active scanner. It lacks explicit side-effect caveats or prerequisites, but these are partly implied by the active scan behavior and would be visible in the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds overall scan context but does not explain how specific parameters (e.g., body, headers, scope filters) are used beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Scan for verbose error page disclosure,' a specific verb+resource+outcome that clearly distinguishes this from sibling scanners. It further specifies the detection signals (stack traces, debug info, internal path disclosure), removing ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use case clear: trigger errors with malformed input and inspect responses for verbose disclosure. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but no close sibling covers error-page disclosure and the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It describes the core behavior: identifying ID parameters, mutating them, and comparing responses. This is meaningful, though it could elaborate on how response comparison detects issues (e.g., status codes, content length). Overall, it gives a solid behavioral overview for an active fuzzing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a succinct workflow summary. No filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema present, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's operation. It doesn't explain every parameter, but the schema covers those. The description could mention when to supply candidate_ids or scope-related parameters, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and initially invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning 'URL and body' which maps to url/body params, and 'mutates them' implying the mutation behavior. This is adequate but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Fuzz a URL directly') and the security goal (IDOR/BOLA detection). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'idor_fuzz' by emphasizing no logged request is needed, making the tool's scope immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without needing a logged request' implies when to use this tool compared to request-based alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, this context provides clear usage guidance for an agent deciding between this and other fuzzing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key mechanism: injects unique OOB domains into request parameters, waits for callback, and confirms SSRF. It also mentions the encryption details (RSA-2048 + AES-CFB) and the near-zero false positives. It does not mention potential side effects like making outbound requests from the target to interactsh, but the mechanism itself implies this. Overall, it provides a good behavioral outline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value. It explains the methodology and the security aspects without fluff. It is compact and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. The description explains the core functionality and detection logic. It could benefit from clarifying any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or the expected behavior if the target is unreachable, but for a scanning tool with a well-defined schema, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not provide examples, relationships, or usage tips for parameters. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans a URL for SSRF via out-of-band interaction, using a specific mechanism (interactsh). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqli_scan or xss_scan, which target different vulnerability classes. The verb 'Scan' plus resource 'URL' and purpose 'SSRF' is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates its purpose (SSRF detection) and implicitly when to use it (when suspicious of SSRF). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or call out alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide an agent. No explicit exclusions are needed for this specialized tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the methodology: a unique marker wrapped in an HTML-breaking payload is injected per parameter and the response is statically analyzed. It also explains the triage output semantics—confirmed, likely, or no finding—which is critical for interpreting results and avoiding false confidence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact paragraphs with a front-loaded main action and a tight, information-dense follow-up. The classification detail in the second paragraph is necessary for safe interpretation, and no sentence is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what is tested, how it is tested, and how findings are classified, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Since an output schema exists, the description need not spell out return fields; the scanner-specific behavioral nuance is fully addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains url, body, method, headers, scope filters, and the param override. The description adds general context about query/body parameters and per-parameter testing but does not add meaning on top of the schema for individual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Probe a request's query/body parameters for reflected XSS.' This clearly distinguishes xss_scan from sibling scanners like sqli_scan, ssrf_scan, and ssti_scan by naming the exact vulnerability class and injection surface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use (reflected XSS detection) is implied by the purpose statement, but the description gives no explicit 'when to use' guidance and names no alternatives or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer suitability from the tool name and sibling set rather than from direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently walks through the workflow: loading the request, identifying ID-like parameters, generating or using candidate IDs, sending mutated requests, and diffing responses. It does not explicitly warn about live network side effects, but 'sends mutated requests' conveys the active nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a compact but informative workflow breakdown. Every phrase contributes meaning without repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a fuzzer with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core input-to-output pipeline well: source request, mutation strategy, candidate generation, execution, and detection goal. It does not address edge cases like rate limits or authentication, but the schema and output schema cover parameter details.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by explaining that ID-like parameters include numeric IDs and UUIDs, that candidate IDs can be auto-generated or explicitly supplied, and that responses are diffed. This complements the schema descriptions and helps the agent decide how to populate candidate_ids and target_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence uses a specific verb ('Fuzz') and resource ('a logged HTTP request'), and the description explains the mechanism: swapping ID parameters and diffing responses to detect IDOR/BOLA. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic replay/search tools and the specialized idor_fuzz_url/idor_fuzz_roles siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the tool operates on a request already logged in memory, which is an important prerequisite. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like idor_fuzz_url or idor_fuzz_roles, but the usage intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does 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 clearly discloses that the tool inspects the reconFTW output root on disk and returns only domain names with a corresponding directory. This implies a read-only, local filesystem operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that each add value: the first states the primary action and scope, the second clarifies the exact condition for inclusion. There is no redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema available. The description fully explains what is listed and under what filesystem condition. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke or interpret the tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of inventing parameter details that do not exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all domains with reconFTW output data on disk'). It also explains the underlying criterion (existence of a Recon/<domain>/ directory), which distinguishes it from sibling recon tools that enumerate subdomains, web targets, or summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs domain names that already have reconFTW output on disk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'on disk' qualifier makes the intended use case unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the small high-signal payload set, distinguishes error-based 'confirmed' results from boolean-based 'likely' results, and explicitly warns that a response diff alone does not prove SQLi and requires human review.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds a compact, high-value explanation of detection methods and confidence levels. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the description sufficiently covers what the scanner does, how it classifies results, and the important limitation of boolean signals. The rich input schema and presence of an output schema mean the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter in detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by framing the target as query/body parameters, but it does not need to repeat the detailed schema explanations already present for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Probe a request's query/body parameters for SQL injection." This clearly distinguishes sqli_scan from sibling scan tools like ssrf_scan, ssti_scan, and xss_scan by naming the vulnerability class and the exact target surface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: the tool is for probing query/body parameters for SQL injection, which tells an agent when to choose it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing and sibling tool names make the intended use evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![HuntX MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IAZENT/HuntX/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IAZENT/HuntX)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![HuntX MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IAZENT/HuntX/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/IAZENT/HuntX)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/IAZENT/HuntX'

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