Scan a web page for known vulnerabilities in JavaScript libraries, providing a report of outdated or insecure components. Use dry-run to preview scan steps.
JavaScript library vulnerability scanner
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the tool scans for vulnerabilities but does not disclose if it modifies state, requires network access, or any side effects. The 'dry_run' parameter hints at execution but is not explained in the context of behavior.
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 extremely short (one phrase) but conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks structure and does not elaborate on critical details. It is concise but at the expense of necessary information for a 3-parameter tool.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist. The description fails to explain what the scan produces (e.g., vulnerability list, severity, or report format). For a scanner tool, this omission makes it incomplete for an agent to understand what to expect from the 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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'dry_run' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'url' or 'session_id', leaving their semantics unclear. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 clearly states the tool is a 'JavaScript library vulnerability scanner', which is a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools that include various network and web scanners, 'retire' is the only one focused on JS libraries, making it easily distinguishable.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'nuclei' or 'quick_scan'. There is no mention of prerequisites, target suitability, 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.