Sends fixed prompt-injection probes to a bot you own to detect leaked system prompts, tool dumps, secrets, exfiltration channels, and canary obedience; requires ownership confirmation.
POST up to 12 fixed prompt-injection probes to a bot you own. confirmOwnBot must be true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| field | No | message | |
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | json | |
| confirmOwnBot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful traits: probes are 'fixed' (bounded, non-open-ended), capped at 12, and gated on ownership/confirmation. It does not say whether requests are actually delivered to the live endpoint, what side effects or logging occur, or what the agent gets back — gaps for an active probing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target scope, with the hard safety requirement stated immediately. Nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A write/probe tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters needs substantially more: what the call returns, how results are reported, and what field/format control. The description stops well short of that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only clarifies confirmOwnBot (must be true) and the 12 cap on limit. url, field, and format receive no meaning in either place, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource: POSTs fixed prompt-injection probes at a bot endpoint, with a cap of 12. Clearly distinct from a scanner by naming the target type (a bot / URL) rather than an MCP server, though the sibling scan_mcp_server is never named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'to a bot you own' plus 'confirmOwnBot must be true' implies the precondition for legitimate use, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no mention of when NOT to run this (e.g. versus scan_mcp_server).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.