Wait for the passive scan backlog to drain before reading findings or generating reports.
Wait for the passive scan backlog to drain before reading findings or generating reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pollIntervalMs | No | Polling interval in milliseconds (1-10000, optional, default: 1000) | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | Maximum seconds to wait before returning (1-300, optional, default: 60) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.0Input schema / properties / pollIntervalMs / descriptionPrevious value: -"Polling interval in milliseconds (optional, default: 1000)"New value: +"Polling interval in milliseconds (1-10000, optional, default: 1000)"Input schema / properties / timeoutSeconds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum seconds to wait before returning (optional, default: 60)"New value: +"Maximum seconds to wait before returning (1-300, optional, default: 60)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — this is a blocking wait that enforces ordering before reads/reports — but it says nothing about what happens if the backlog never drains or on timeout (though timeout semantics are partly covered by the schema's timeoutSeconds field).
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and the sequencing rationale with zero waste. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 low-complexity tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no required inputs, the description covers purpose and ordering adequately. It would be stronger if it mentioned what the call returns or how the blocking status tool relates, but no output schema exists to demand that.
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 pollIntervalMs and timeoutSeconds are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific action and resource: waiting for the passive-scan backlog to drain. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling zap_passive_scan_status (the non-blocking check), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
It states a clear usage context: run it before reading findings or generating reports. That is real sequencing guidance. However, it names no alternative and gives no exclusion, so an agent is not explicitly told when to use zap_passive_scan_status instead of blocking here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.