Retrieve all prompt-injection attack payloads for a given category to evaluate AI defenses, including variants when needed.
获取指定类别的所有攻击载荷
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | 攻击类别ID（如：direct_extraction, role_playing, jailbreak_techniques） | |
| include_variants | No | 是否包含变体载荷（默认：true） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does not state that this is a read-only lookup, nor does it describe ordering, pagination, result size, or what happens when the category is unknown or empty — all of which matter for a bulk fetch of attack payloads.
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?
A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that concision comes at the cost of the guidance an agent would need.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (payload list, fields, variants) and read-only nature. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict what the call returns or how results are bounded.
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 100%, so both parameters (category with example IDs, include_variants with a default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond '指定类别', which is the schema baseline, so 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('获取...攻击载荷') with the scope qualifier '指定类别' (specified category), so an agent knows it returns a filtered collection. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related siblings get_payload_by_id or search_payloads, leaving the boundary implicit.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_payloads, get_payload_by_id, or list_attack_categories. Usage is only inferable from the name and the required 'category' parameter; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.