Wraith MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

detect_waap

Identify a URL's WAAP and anti-bot defenses, returning detected vendor names or an empty list if none. Passive and browserless, it helps map protection before interaction.

Instructions

Fingerprint a URL's WAAP / anti-bot defenses (Akamai, Cloudflare, Reblaze/Link11, DataDome, Incapsula, SiteMinder, reCAPTCHA, ...). Returns a list of detected vendor names — empty if none. Passive; no browser needed.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "detect_waap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is passive and returns a list of vendor names (empty if none), implying no side effects. Could be more explicit about no modifications, but sufficient.

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 with front-loaded purpose and examples. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Tool is simple (one param, no nested objects), and description clearly states input, behavior, and output (list of vendor names or empty). Output schema exists but description already covers return value.

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?

Single parameter 'url' with 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies it's the target URL for fingerprinting, which is adequate. Could add format expectations but not critical.

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?

Clearly states the tool fingerprints a URL's WAAP/anti-bot defenses with specific vendor examples. Distinguishes from sibling browser interaction tools (click, navigate, etc.).

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?

Explicitly notes 'Passive; no browser needed', guiding agents to use it when they want to identify defenses without browser overhead. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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