Disable ModSecurity for specified domains to resolve compatibility or request-blocking issues. Provide a comma-separated domain list to turn off the rule engine for those sites only.
Disable ModSecurity for specific domains
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | Comma-separated list of domains to disable ModSecurity on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. It only states the action and scope but does not mention consequences, reversibility, permissions, or interplay with global ModSecurity settings. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 that immediately conveys the action and scope. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks behavioral context such as success/failure responses or effects on existing settings. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional context would be helpful, making it only minimally complete.
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 input schema already fully documents the 'domains' parameter with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('ModSecurity') with a clear scope ('for specific domains'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'disable_modsecurity' (global) and 'enable_modsecurity_domain' (the inverse operation). It clearly states what the tool does.
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?
The phrase 'for specific domains' implies this is for domain-scoped disabling as opposed to global disable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools or any prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.