waf_detectIdentify the WAF or CDN shielding a target URL by analyzing headers and response body. Use it to map defenses before testing.
Detect a WAF/CDN in front of a URL from headers and response body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target URL, e.g. "https://example.com". | |
| from_token | No | Optional scan_token from an earlier call. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the detection method but says nothing about whether the call performs live network requests, whether it is read-only or safe to repeat, or how the optional from_token affects behavior.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key information (target and method) is front-loaded. It could have used the space to add usage context instead of stopping so early.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a detection tool with no annotations, the description omits the when-to-use context and any behavioral notes about live probing, leaving it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the example URL format and the from_token's origin. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('WAF/CDN in front of a URL') plus the method used (headers and response body). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tech_detect or http_probe by naming the detection target, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus tech_detect, http_probe, or origin_bypass_check, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the target to be reachable. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.