Extract URLs and secrets from JavaScript to uncover hidden resources during penetration testing.
Extract URLs and secrets from JavaScript.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "js_jsluice"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| file | No | ||
| additional_args | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only states the extraction purpose but does not specify whether it fetches remote content, reads local files, requires network access, or has side effects. This leaves key behavioral aspects ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core function without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool description is too skeletal. It lacks essential context about input handling, output format, and relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for reliable invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'url', 'file', or 'additional_args'. The parameter names alone are insufficient to understand how to use them correctly, especially the 'additional_args' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: extracting URLs and secrets from JavaScript. It is specific with a verb and resource, but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like js_trufflehog or js_getjs, which may also handle secrets or URLs, so it falls slightly short of excellent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as js_trufflehog or js_paramspider. It also gives no context about input modes, prerequisites, or whether to use url vs file, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.