Check the current status of a guided active-scan operation using its operation ID, providing real-time progress and completion details for security scans.
Get status for a guided active-scan operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes | Guided attack operation ID returned by zap_attack_start |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but no annotations are provided and the description does not explicitly disclose non-mutating behavior, polling semantics, or behavior when the operation no longer exists. It leaves an important lifecycle behavior to inference.
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 sentence and has no filler or irrelevant detail. It front-loads the core purpose and stays appropriately minimal for a status-query tool.
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?
For a one-parameter status endpoint, the description is close to sufficient: it states the resource and the schema documents the parameter. However, with no output schema and no lifecycle or polling guidance, the description does not fully prepare an agent for interpreting status outcomes or knowing when this tool applies.
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 the single operationId parameter is already well documented, including its provenance as a return value from zap_attack_start. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond that.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Get status', and a specific resource, 'a guided active-scan operation.' This clearly differentiates it from passive-scan, crawl-status, and history tools, and does not simply restate the tool name.
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 does not state when an agent should call this tool, such as after zap_attack_start or while polling an attack operation, and it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions. The usage is only implicit from the name and schema, not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.