Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MoonMCP

MoonMCP

by Moonwuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

fingerprint

Fetch a URL and identify its technology stack, including web server, CDN, frameworks, and libraries, with version hints and evidence.

Instructions

Fetch a URL and fingerprint its technology stack: web server, CDN/WAF, language/runtime, frameworks, CMS and front-end libraries, with version hints and the evidence for each match. In scope only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "fingerprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool fetches a URL and returns version hints with evidence, but does not disclose potential rate limits, side effects, or permission requirements.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's action and outputs, with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, scope constraint, and high-level return content (version hints and evidence). Without an output schema, it provides sufficient context, though details on error handling or out-of-scope behavior are missing.

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 0%, so description compensates. It implies 'target' is a URL by stating 'Fetch a URL,' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Target' title. More explicit format details would improve clarity.

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 fetches a URL and fingerprints its technology stack, listing specific categories (web server, CDN/WAF, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_headers or host_intel.

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 includes 'In scope only,' which gives a constraint on usage, but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools