Decode a Base64 victim ID to get readable victim and group names, with no API call needed.
Decode a Base64 victim ID back into its victim and group names.
Offline helper; makes no API call.
Args: victim_id: Base64-encoded victim ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| victim_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'makes no API call,' which is extra context beyond the annotations and clarifies that this is a pure, side-effect-free operation. No contradictions with annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 the tool is a simple decode operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter format, and the offline nature. An output schema exists, so return values are not required to be explained. It could mention the inverse tool, but that is optional.
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 provides no description for 'victim_id' (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying 'Base64-encoded victim ID,' which is essential and adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type. This fully explains the expected format for the single parameter.
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 ('Decode'), a resource ('Base64 victim ID'), and the output ('victim and group names'). This clearly distinguishes it from its inverse sibling 'build_victim_id'.
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?
Explicitly notes 'Offline helper; makes no API call,' which tells an agent when to use this tool (i.e., when a local, network-free decode is needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the offline constraint is a clear and sufficient guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.