Detect and exploit SQL injection vulnerabilities in web applications by analyzing URLs and testing parameters.
SQL injection detection and exploitation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| consent | No | ||
| 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 potential destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or the meaning of the consent/dry_run parameters. The agent is left unaware that exploitation can modify databases.
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 brief (5 words) but under-specifies the tool. Conciseness should be balanced with informativeness; here it is too sparse.
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 5 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context. The tool is complex (SQL injection exploitation) but the description offers minimal guidance.
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 20% (only dry_run has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like url, params, consent, or session_id beyond their names.
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 'SQL injection detection and exploitation' clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting and exploiting SQL injection vulnerabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., nmap, nuclei) which are not SQL-injection specific, establishing unique identity.
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 like commix (command injection) or dalfox (XSS). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.