Validate a prepared authentication session to ensure it's ready for authenticated crawl or attack flows, avoiding failed scans from invalid sessions.
Validate a prepared guided auth session before authenticated crawl or attack flows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID returned by zap_auth_session_prepare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'validate' without revealing whether it is read-only, what happens on success or failure, or any side effects. This is a notable gap for a tool that might be called in an automated flow.
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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when' but omits behavioral details such as return format, error conditions, and whether the validation is a side-effect-free check. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer or discover.
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 description for sessionId already states it is the session ID returned by zap_auth_session_prepare, and the tool description aligns with that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing the 'prepared' nature. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.
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 purpose: to validate a prepared guided auth session. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and identifies the resource (auth session), and the context ('before authenticated crawl or attack flows') distinguishes it from sibling tools like zap_auth_session_prepare.
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 implies when to use this tool: after preparing a session and before initiating crawl or attack flows. It provides clear contextual timing but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.