wifi-security-mcp-server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., scan_wifi_networks vs. analyze_wifi_security), but some overlap exists, such as multiple WiFi auditing and analysis tools that could confuse an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_wifi_networks, analyze_ble, export_report). Minor typo in map_wireless_attck does not affect overall consistency.
Tool Count4/5
At 34 tools, the server is large but justified by the broad domain of wireless security. Each tool serves a specific sub-domain; however, a slightly smaller set might improve efficiency.
Completeness5/5
The server covers a vast range of wireless technologies (WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, Cellular, IoT, etc.) with tools for reconnaissance, analysis, attack, defense, compliance, and reporting. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 17, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'attack planning' and 'replay attack guides' which imply potentially destructive actions, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether modifications are irreversible. This is a critical gap for a tool with attack capabilities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists core capabilities. It is front-loaded with key terms, but could be more structured with bullet points or separation of modes for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 14 parameters, 8 modes, and no output schema. The description is too vague to fully guide an agent; it does not explain what each mode returns, prerequisites, or how parameters interact. For a complex tool, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a descriptive role (e.g., [setup_guide] for OS). The main description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, just listing high-level capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool does 'RF signal analysis and attack planning' and lists specific capabilities like protocol identification, signal analysis, replay attack guides, and SDR hardware selection. This is a clear verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as scan_wifi_networks or analyze_wifi_security which also involve RF analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lists operation modes but does not explain when each mode is appropriate or exclude sibling tools. For example, an agent might not know whether to use analyze_rf_signal or find_wifi_attacks for a specific task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or what outputs/results to expect. This is a critical gap for a security audit tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key actions. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has multiple modes and no output schema, the description should clarify what each mode returns (e.g., reports, vulnerabilities). It also lacks prerequisites or invocation context. The description is incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes. The description adds no new meaning beyond summarizing the modes, which the schema already enumerates. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a WiFi 6/6E/7 security audit and lists four modes (assess, assess MLO, compare, attack surfaces), giving clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks, though the modes imply unique functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. With many sibling tools covering similar domains (scan_wifi_networks, analyze_wifi_security), the description lacks context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It lists actions (scan, analyze, enumerate) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or hardware requirements. It lacks information on whether the tool modifies state, requires root, or has safety implications. The description is merely a feature list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a comma-separated list of capabilities. It is reasonably concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It conveys core functions but could be more readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to chain with sibling tools. The agent lacks context for proper usage, especially given the many related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond repeating the modes. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for WiFi network reconnaissance and analysis, listing specific capabilities like scanning, encryption analysis, client enumeration, etc. The name and description align, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'scan_bluetooth' and 'scan_iot_wireless' by focusing on WiFi. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similarly-named WiFi analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus the many sibling tools (e.g., analyze_wifi_security, find_wifi_attacks). It does not mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or specific scenarios. The agent must infer from the list of capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'composite tool' and 'guide', suggesting it is non-destructive, but does not detail behavior such as whether it requires active scanning, user input, or has side effects. Significant gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 25 words, which is concise. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and modes. However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (composite with 3 modes, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameters apply to which mode, nor does it hint at return values or output format. The schema partially compensates, but the description lacks essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by briefly explaining each mode, but the schema already documents parameters with enums and descriptions. The description does not clarify mode-parameter relationships or provide additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is for drone RF security analysis with three modes (detect, analyze, counter), clearly specifying the resource and actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target other wireless technologies, making the purpose fairly clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. The description only lists the modes but does not explain when to choose this composite tool over other RF or wireless tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists modes without disclosing whether the tool actually executes attacks, captures credentials, or modifies the environment (e.g., it says 'design captive portals' but not if it creates files or connections). The behavioral impact is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences; the first sentence repeats 'Evil Twin attack planning and defense' which is redundant. It could be more concise by merging. However, it front-loads the purpose and enumerates modes, so it is structurally adequate but not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. Given the complexity of 4 modes and 9 parameters, the description is incomplete—it omits return values, side effects, and prerequisites, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a brief description in the schema. The tool description groups parameters by mode (e.g., 'target_ssid' for plan mode) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evil Twin attack planning and defense. Plan attacks, configure EAP credential capture, design captive portals, generate detection rules.' It specifies the verb (simulate/plan) and resource (evil twin attacks) and distinguishes from siblings like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_wifi_security which are more about reconnaissance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists four modes but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., when to simulate vs. scan or analyze). No explicit context for decision-making is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the mode list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only lists mode outputs (e.g., rule generation, guide, indicators) without disclosing operations, side effects, or prerequisites. Agent lacks insight into what the tool actually does beyond generating text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with clear enumeration of modes. Concise and front-loaded, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet format) for easier scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, yet description does not explain return values or behavior. Given 5 modes and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete—it omits output details and fails to specify action (e.g., returns text rules, guides, or recommendations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with param descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond listing mode names; however, baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Unified wireless attack detection tool' and enumerates five distinct modes, providing a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from more specialized sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_deauth.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists modes but does not provide when-not or compare to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It lists what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is active/scans, potential destructiveness, permissions needed, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence attempting to cover many capabilities; moderately sized but could be more structured or broken into bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks usage context for each mode and expected output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value over parameter descriptions. Baseline is 3; the description provides high-level context but no additional per-parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as Bluetooth reconnaissance including scanning, enumeration, security checks, and vulnerability identification. It distinguishes from sibling tools by covering a broad range of Bluetooth operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 find_bluetooth_attacks or analyze_ble. The description lists modes but does not specify scenarios or sequencing with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must bear full burden. It only lists analysis modes but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether any state is modified. For a security analysis tool, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently communicates purpose and modes. No redundant words, information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite detailed parameter schema, the description is too brief. It omits expected output, interpretation of results, and any usage context. With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns for each mode.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions that explain the mode-specific usage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'BLE security analysis' and enumerates four specific modes (GATT audit, pairing security, sniffing guide, privacy check). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_bluetooth and find_bluetooth_attacks which focus on discovery or attack finding, not security analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description only lists modes but does not compare to scan_bluetooth or other BLE tools. No cautionary notes or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'assessment' and 'estimation' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how modes work in detail, or the expected behavior for different inputs. The tool's complexity demands more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds a summary of modes but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs comprehensive WiFi security analysis, listing specific areas like WPA/WPA2/WPA3 configuration, PSK strength, EAP security, PMF status, protocol comparison, and crack time estimation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks (scanning) and find_wifi_attacks (finding attacks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists modes but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like crack_wps or analyze_pmkid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'composite tool' for scanning but does not disclose whether scanning is passive or active, whether it modifies anything, or any potential side effects (e.g., network disruption). The behavioral impact of each mode is not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first states the tool's purpose, second lists modes and their functions. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description does not explain what each mode returns or the structure of results. For a composite tool with varied outputs (e.g., lookup returns attack details, scan_guide returns setup instructions), missing this information reduces completeness. No prerequisites or context are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters, including enum values. The description briefly explains each mode but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, mode is already fully described in the schema. The description does not compensate further, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it's a composite tool for IoT wireless protocol security scanning and lists five distinct modes. It uses specific verbs (scan) and resources (IoT wireless protocols), clearly defining its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific protocols (e.g., analyze_zigbee) by offering a composite structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only lists the modes without providing any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_zigbee, scan_bluetooth). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent has no basis to choose this over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a 'composite tool' and lists modes, but does not describe side effects, network activity, hardware requirements, or result types. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with the key information front-loaded. It wastes no words, but could benefit from better structuring (e.g., bullet points for modes). Still, it is efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or outcomes. It does not mention what each mode produces (e.g., overview, privacy risks, detection results). Additionally, prerequisites or limitations are omitted, leaving the tool's full functionality unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with enum descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It repeats the mode enum values in the description but does not explain specifics like what each mode does or how the scenario parameter affects behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a composite tool for WiFi CSI analysis and lists three distinct modes (techniques, privacy, detect). The verb 'analyze' and resource 'WiFi CSI' are specific, and the tool differentiates itself from siblings like 'scan_wifi_networks' and 'analyze_wifi_security' by focusing on CSI sensing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions three modes, giving some guidance on when to use each. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like 'find_wifi_attacks' or 'analyze_wifi_security'. No exclusions or context for appropriate scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only lists modes without disclosing behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or rate limits. Operations like key_extract may be active but are not described, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and modes. Although a bullet list could improve scannability, there is no wasted text. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 modes, no output schema or annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits output behavior, mode-specific use cases, and prerequisites, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of what each mode entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already explained in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the mode names; it does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a composite tool for Zigbee network security analysis and lists four specific modes (analyze, sniff_guide, key_extract, replay). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other wireless protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Zigbee security analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_iot_wireless. It lacks when-not or direct comparisons, though sibling differentiation is somewhat inherent due to protocol specificity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool performs network interactions, is read-only or destructive, or requires permissions. The 'bypass' mode implies active engagement, but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value by stating the tool's nature and listing modes with one-line explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., report, recommendations). It also lacks information about prerequisites (network connectivity) and limitations. The tool's modes are covered, but overall completeness is insufficient for confident usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking modes to parameters (e.g., bypass uses portal_type), but the schema descriptions already adequately describe each parameter's purpose. No significant extra meaning is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'unified captive portal analysis tool' and lists three specific modes (bypass, assess, defense) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other wireless topics but not captive portals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for captive portal analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_wifi_networks) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it is a 'composite tool' with modes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential destructiveness (e.g., attack mode), permissions needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a colon to list modes efficiently, with no redundant information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavior per mode. For a composite tool, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., modes and protocols) but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a composite tool for wireless display (Miracast/AirPlay/Chromecast) security analysis with distinct modes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_ble, which target other protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions three modes (assess, attack, defense) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the protocol focus, but no when-not scenarios or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only lists capabilities but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output format is. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail but could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullets) for clarity. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a functional overview but lacks details about return values, error handling, parameter combinations, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level overview but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for Bluetooth attack technique lookup, specifying search dimensions (CVE, protocol, severity, category) and actions (get commands, assess feasibility). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_bluetooth and analyze_ble by focusing on attack technique lookup rather than scanning or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for lookup and assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_bluetooth or lookup_wireless_cve. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs lookups and searches, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) occur. Minimal behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and lists modes. Every word is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has six parameters, four modes, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what each mode returns, any constraints, or expected output format. The agent lacks information to correctly interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats mode names. No examples, parameter interactions, or additional semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified wireless CVE lookup tool with four distinct modes (lookup, search, by_product, stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scanning, analyzing, or attacking wireless networks, not on vulnerability lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists modes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use each mode or when to choose an alternative sibling tool. Usage is implied by mode names (e.g., lookup for specific CVE, search for filtering), but no exclusions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does 'get attack commands' imply execution? Are changes made to the system?). Lacks clarity on whether it is read-only or potentially destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero fluff. Each phrase adds distinct information (tool purpose, four modes). Efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain how parameters map to modes (e.g., which params are needed for 'analyze'). The schema provides some detail, but the description lacks integration. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description that adds meaning (e.g., 'for detect mode'). The description enumerates modes but adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool is for 'Deauthentication attack analysis and defense' and lists four specific modes (analyze feasibility, generate detection rules, get attack commands, recommend defenses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_wifi_attacks (general discovery) and analyze_wifi_security (broader security analysis).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deauth-specific tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_wifi_attacks or analyze_wifi_security. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is composite and describes modes, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens when parameters are used in conflicting modes, whether the tool is destructive, rate limits, or output format. For a mutation-capable tool (attack mode), this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with a clear structure introducing the tool and listing modes. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes explicitly), but overall it is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 does not explain return values, error states, prerequisites, or confirm whether the tool modifies state. For a composite tool with multiple modes, this incompleteness leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the enum values by providing brief context: 'assess UWB security for a use case', 'attack techniques including Ghost Peak', 'secure ranging best practices'. It also clarifies that use_case is for assess mode, which the schema does not explicitly enforce.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a composite tool for UWB security analysis with specific modes (assess, attack, defense). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other wireless technologies like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'UWB' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the three modes and briefly explains each, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for UWB analysis, there is no mention of when not to use it or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'attack techniques' which may be destructive, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or what the tool modifies. This is insufficient for a multi-mode tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical explanation of modes. No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and multi-modal behavior, the description covers the modes but lacks information on return values, expected output per mode, or any preconditions. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no further meaning to parameters besides grouping modes. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a composite tool for WiFi Direct security analysis, with three distinct modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security, which cover general WiFi, and the mention of P2P adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists modes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks. Usage context is implied but not directly stated, and no when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates it is a composite tool with multiple modes, but lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authorization needs, or side effects. With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency but not in-depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that packs essential information, including all modes. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from structured formatting for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple modes, no output schema), the description provides a useful overview but lacks details on return values or behavior per mode. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds high-level context for modes but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it is a composite tool for cellular network security analysis and lists all supported modes, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through mode names but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/analyze tool but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The modes suggest lookups and guides, which are typically safe, but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently captures the tool's scope. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly dense with bullet-style lists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, multiple modes), the description provides a useful summary but lacks detail on how to use each mode or which parameters are needed for each. However, the schema fills in the gaps, so overall it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much about parameters. It provides a high-level overview but no additional detail beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for NFC/RFID security analysis, listing specific capabilities like card identification, attack lookup, cloning guides, and defense recommendations. It distinguishes itself from siblings which are primarily WiFi and Bluetooth tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for NFC/RFID security tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. The mode parameter provides some guidance, but there are no when-not or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool audits and guides but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, output format, or error behavior. For a read-like tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and modes. It is concise without being under-specified, earning a high score for structure, though a touch more detail on mode usage could improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or post-condition effects. It provides enough to understand the tool's scope but not enough for fully informed invocation without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantic value beyond listing modes; it merely repeats the mode names. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies it as a 'Unified WLAN controller auditing tool' and lists four distinct modes, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. Sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or find_wifi_attacks focus on client-side or attack scanning, so this tool is well-differentiated as a controller-side auditing tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via mode selection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to choose audit_ssid mode vs analyze_wifi_security). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from mode names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only names modes without explaining side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is destructive. Lacks safety or impact information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first sentence states the main purpose, second lists modes with brief explanations. No wasted words, front-loaded key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what each mode returns. It does not mention return values, expected results, or error conditions. For a multi-mode tool, this is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that auth_method is required for assess mode, osu_enabled is used by assess mode, and hs20_version is required for assess mode. This clarifies parameter usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified Hotspot 2.0 / Passpoint analysis tool with three distinct modes (assess, attack, defense). It differentiates from sibling tools by being specific to Hotspot 2.0, not general Wi-Fi analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists modes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes modes but gives no information about side effects, data sources, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences. No unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place by stating the tool's purpose and listing modes with brief clarifications. Extremely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the tool's function and modes adequately, but given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, it could benefit from details about return values, parameter interactions, or examples. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by mapping parameters to modes (e.g., 'hardware_id' for lookup, 'use_case' for recommend), providing a high-level understanding beyond individual field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified pentest hardware lookup tool and lists four specific modes: lookup, search, recommend, compare. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific wireless technologies or attacks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the modes but does not explicitly guide when to use each mode or when to prefer sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not stated, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'composite' and lists modes, but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or output size. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists modes efficiently. Structure is appropriate for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (composite with multiple modes and 6 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter dependencies (e.g., which parameters apply to which modes) or hint at the return format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents each parameter's enums and descriptions. The tool description only elaborates on the mode parameter, not the others or their interdependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's domain (air-gap exfiltration analysis) and lists the four modes (techniques, assess, detect, defense), providing specific verb+resource for each. It distinguishes from the wireless-focused sibling tools by explicitly focusing on air-gap scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each mode, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, though the domain difference from siblings is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lacks information on whether the tool is read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, or side effects. The 'defense' mode likely modifies settings, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mode structure. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (modes, parameter dependencies). It lacks return value or error details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand core functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by logically grouping parameters with modes (e.g., deployment for defense, device_type for assess/attacks, wireless_protocol for assess), providing context beyond the schema's simple 'required for' labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines it as a unified medical wireless security tool with three distinct modes (assess, attacks, defense), each briefly explained. This differentiates it from sibling tools that are focused on specific protocols or general wireless security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for medical wireless contexts through the title and scope, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_zigbee. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions attack commands including brute force, Pixie Dust, and null PIN, implying potentially destructive or intrusive behavior, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., monitor mode, root access) or ethical/legal warnings. No annotations exist to supplement this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key modes, but it could be better structured (e.g., separated into bullet points or clearer sections). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal guidance on what results to expect or how parameters interact. It covers the three modes sufficiently but lacks detail on output or usage order.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no new semantic value beyond summarizing the mode options. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: WPS security analysis and attack, including specific modes (assess, attack_commands, defense). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on WPS, not general Wi-Fi analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description and mode parameter clearly indicate when to use which mode (assess, attack_commands, defense). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons to alternatives like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the high-level modes but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool is passive or active, required permissions, or potential side effects. More transparency is needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences plus a bullet-like list of modes. Every word is informative and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality (three modes). It does not explain return values, but the tool is a analysis tool with likely output that is self-explanatory. Overall, fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it explains modes but not parameter details. The schema already provides adequate descriptions for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a unified MAC randomization analysis tool with three distinct modes (bypass, assess, tracking), each with a brief explanation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other wireless security aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for each mode (bypass for OS-specific bypass techniques, assess for implementation quality, tracking for device tracking). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but given the sibling list, no direct alternative exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names four modes and mentions hardware parameters, but does not disclose behavioral details such as what each mode does internally, potential destructive effects (e.g., keystroke injection), or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no irrelevant text, and every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is composite with multiple modes and 6 parameters, but no output schema exists. The description does not explain what each mode returns (e.g., scan results format, inject confirmation). This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it lists modes but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or examples. For a compound tool with 6 parameters, the description could better explain parameter relevance per mode.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a composite tool for MouseJack vulnerability assessment and explicitly lists four modes (scan, assess, inject, defense). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or scan_bluetooth, which target different wireless protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing modes, providing context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which are all different wireless domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' commands but does not clarify whether it executes them or merely outputs strings. Additionally, it omits any mention of prerequisites, permissions, or side effects, leaving behavioral traits partially unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('PMKID attack analysis') and immediately lists the three modes and related tools. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the three modes and the general purpose, but it lacks any mention of the output format (e.g., text, structured data, command lines). Without an output schema, the agent is left to infer what the tool returns. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this is a notable gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'optimized settings' but does not detail which parameters are relevant per mode. The schema already describes each parameter, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for PMKID attack analysis, lists three specific modes (assess, capture commands, crack commands) and mentions exact tools (hcxdumptool, hashcat). This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks which cover broader or different attack vectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The three modes explicitly guide usage: assess feasibility, get capture commands, or get cracking commands. While it does not compare directly to sibling tools, the mode enumeration makes clear when each function is appropriate, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It describes each mode's purpose and parameter requirements but omits side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), access requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences) with a clear front-loaded statement and a structured list of modes. Every sentence adds value, though a very brief usage hint could further improve efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 4 modes, no output schema), the description covers mode purposes and parameter dependencies adequately. It does not explain return format but the absence of output schema reduces the deficit. Sibling context reinforces its compliance niche.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by linking parameters to specific modes (e.g., 'findings required for report mode') and enumerating modes without redundancy. This enhances the schema's per-parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Unified wireless compliance auditing tool' and lists four distinct modes (check, gap_analysis, compare_frameworks, report), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings focused on signal analysis or attacks by centering on compliance frameworks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through mode enumeration but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not include when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. While 'export' suggests non-destructive behavior, this is not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of output format or behavior beyond mode selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one sentence defining the tool's unified nature, and one sentence listing all modes. No redundant information; every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 7 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is too minimal. It does not explain parameter dependencies (e.g., 'scope' required for executive_summary), error handling, or return format. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall completeness is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each mode (e.g., 'export as JSON', 'generate executive summary'), which goes beyond the schema's enum listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Unified report export tool' and lists four specific modes (json, markdown, executive_summary, csv) with their output types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (all wireless security analyzers) and provides a specific verb-resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when exporting reports in various formats but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, given the sibling tools are all wireless-focused, this is the only export tool, minimizing confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool as a 'mapping tool' without stating whether it is read-only, requires network access, or has side effects. The modes imply data retrieval, but the description does not clarify behavior (e.g., does it query external databases? Are results cached?). This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Unified wireless ATT&CK mapping tool'), and follows with a compact list of modes. Every word contributes information; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four modes with different returns (lookup returns technique details, coverage returns full matrix, etc.), but the description does not explain what each mode outputs or what the return format is. No output schema exists. While the description covers the modes, it lacks details on data shape (e.g., heatmap data structure) and does not differentiate from sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining each mode's purpose beyond the schema's enum labels (e.g., 'lookup technique by ID' vs. just 'lookup'), and lists valid tactics for by_tactic mode. This enhances understanding of how parameters interact with modes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'wireless ATT&CK mapping tool,' specifies four distinct modes (lookup, coverage, by_tactic, heatmap), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scanning, analyzing, or attacking wireless networks. Verb 'map' plus 'wireless ATT&CK' is specific and concrete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concise usage guide for each mode (e.g., 'lookup technique by ID' for lookup mode), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or note any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools are not mentioned, so no comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It correctly implies that the tool performs read-only searches and explorations without destructive side effects. While it doesn't detail authentication or rate limits, the behavioral scope is clear and consistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key modes. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's capabilities. It lacks details on return values but the modes are clearly explained, making it complete enough for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds context by enumerating modes but does not explain parameter interplay or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching and exploring WiFi attacks in a knowledge base. It lists distinct actions (lookup by ID, search by protocol/category/severity, find by CVE/tool, get commands) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_wifi_security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying attack data but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wifi-security-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/wifi-security-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/wifi-security-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wifi-security-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/wifi-security-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/wifi-security-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/badchars/wifi-security-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server