Identify web technologies, frameworks, and server components of a target URL to support penetration testing and vulnerability discovery.
Web technology fingerprinting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| 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 exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as network access, non-destructiveness, or output format. The one-line description provides no behavioral context.
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 but under-specified. The single phrase lacks structure and fails to convey necessary information.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or differentiation from other fingerprinting tools.
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 25% (only dry_run described). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. Parameters like url, consent, session_id are left undocumented.
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 'Web technology fingerprinting' vaguely indicates the tool's purpose but lacks a specific verb and resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like wafw00f or dnsrecon.
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 usage guidelines provided. No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.