Detect hidden HTTP parameters on target URLs to expose unhandled inputs and broaden penetration testing coverage.
HTTP parameter discovery
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | Preview commands/steps without executing the scan | |
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the tool sends requests, the nature of output, or any side effects.
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?
Extremely concise (3 words) but under-specified. It fails to provide necessary details, making it minimally useful.
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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain output format, prerequisites, or how to interpret results.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, and no parameter details in the description, the semantics of 'url' and 'session_id' are completely opaque. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 'HTTP parameter discovery' clearly states the specific verb (discover) and resource (HTTP parameters). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ffuf or gobuster, which could also discover parameters in some contexts.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ffuf or gobuster. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.