Execute predefined prompt-injection test sequences to evaluate AI system defenses and identify vulnerabilities. Provide a sequence name such as basic boundary or advanced jailbreak tests.
执行预定义的测试序列
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequence_name | Yes | 测试序列名称（如：基础边界测试、高级越狱测试） |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what happens during execution (side effects, duration, outputs, permissions, whether sequences are destructive). The single word '执行' (execute) implies an action but reveals nothing about behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear, though it is arguably too short for a tool with behavioral complexity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-like action (executing sequences), the description is inadequate. It omits necessary details such as what gets executed, expected outcomes, safety considerations, or return values.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage and includes an example for sequence_name, so the parameter is well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('执行预定义的测试序列' = execute a predefined test sequence), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like analyze_response or generate_report, and the purpose is generic within the security/payload context.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_response or list_attack_categories. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.