batch_scope_checkCanonicalize and evaluate up to 100 targets without network activity to validate bug bounty scope and filter in-scope assets before testing.
Canonicalize and evaluate up to 100 targets without network activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| denied | Yes | ||
| allowed | Yes | ||
| decisions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the offline nature and adds the 100-target ceiling, but adds nothing about how targets are canonicalized, whether input order is preserved, or how partial/invalid entries are handled.
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 with no padding, and the batch limit sits where a reader needs it. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is part of why key semantics are missing rather than a stylistic strength.
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-value detail is not required. Still, for a one-parameter tool the agent lacks the core notion of what 'evaluate' resolves to and how this differs from the non-batch 'scope_check' sibling, leaving a real gap despite the simple shape.
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 0% for the single 'targets' parameter, so the description must compensate. It supplies the useful 100-item bound, but never says what a target looks like (domain, URL, CIDR, wildcard) or what canonicalization is applied, leaving the element format undocumented in both places.
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 verb pair 'canonicalize and evaluate' plus the resource 'targets' gives a rough sense of the operation, and the 100-item cap matches the schema. However, it never states what the evaluation decides (e.g., in-scope vs out-of-scope) or that it is the batch counterpart of the sibling 'scope_check', so the agent must infer the purpose from the 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?
'Without network activity' implies a local/offline check, which is a weak contextual hint. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over the sibling 'scope_check', and no stated prerequisites such as where the scope rules come from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.