Lists installed scan template IDs, protocols, severities, and network ports without scanning, so you can review available templates before requesting approved IDs or paths.
List installed template IDs, protocol, severity and network ports without scanning. Exact IDs/paths still need an approved plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| protocol | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by clarifying that no scan traffic is generated and that exact template IDs/paths are gated behind an approved plan, which is the kind of policy context annotations cannot express.
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?
Two short sentences with the non-scanning guarantee front-loaded and the plan-gating caveat following. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description helpfully previews the returned fields and the safety posture. For a read-only three-parameter listing tool it is nearly complete, with only the keyword and limit semantics missing.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the three parameters. It only gestures at protocol filtering, and never explains what "keyword" matches or how "limit" is applied, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List installed template IDs, protocol, severity and network ports") and immediately contrasts with scanning, which separates it from nuclei_execute and nuclei_plan. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
"without scanning" plus "Exact IDs/paths still need an approved plan" tells the agent when this is the cheap discovery step and when to escalate to the planning tool. It stops short of naming nuclei_plan or nuclei_recommend directly, leaving the handoff to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.