Scan web targets for vulnerabilities using customizable templates. Identifies security issues by matching requests against known patterns to aid penetration testing.
Fast vulnerability scanner with templates
| 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 are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the scan is destructive, requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens during execution (e.g., network requests, template loading). The phrase 'fast' hints at performance but is insufficient.
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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, failing to include essential context that would justify its existence.
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, many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected output, error handling, or how session_id is used. For a vulnerability scanner deployed alongside numerous alternatives, much more context is needed.
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 has 33% description coverage (only dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters (url, session_id) beyond their names and types. The dry_run parameter description in the schema is useful but not enhanced by the main description.
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 'Fast vulnerability scanner with templates' identifies the tool as a vulnerability scanner using templates, which distinguishes it from many sibling tools like ping or gobuster. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly the tool does with the provided URL (e.g., scans for specific vulnerabilities like CVEs, misconfigurations, etc.) and how templates are used.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its many sibling scanning tools (e.g., nmap, sqlmap, dalfox). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.