Audit code and configurations for server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities, returning structured findings to identify and address risky request handling.
Audita o domínio "ssrf" (Seção 23). Retorna findings estruturados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes | Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns structured findings but discloses nothing about read-only behavior, permissions required, whether it scans the filesystem vs. running app, or rate/scope limits for an audit operation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the domain and scope, with no filler. Slightly terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.
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 one-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers the return ('structured findings') and scope, but omits what findings contain, severity model, or relationship to sentinela_generate_report. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single project_path parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Audita') and resource ('domínio ssrf'), and the parenthetical 'Seção 23' signals a scoped audit domain. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings via the domain name, but never explicitly contrasts with other audit_* tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sentinela_audit_full or sentinela_get_rules. Usage is only implied by the domain label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.