gau_url_discoveryDiscover archived URLs for a domain via gau providers like Wayback and Common Crawl, returning only authorized HTTP(S) endpoints for bug bounty reconnaissance.
Run the explicitly enabled gau archive discovery binary and retain only authorized HTTP(S) URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| providers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| domain | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are filtered to 'authorized HTTP(S) URLs,' which is useful scope-limiting context, but it says nothing about rate limits, the archive-enabled precondition, or result volume.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and parameter coverage rather than a structural flaw being present.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, the 0% parameter coverage and absent usage guidance leave material gaps for a tool whose behavior depends on a provider selection the description never mentions.
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% and the description explains neither 'domain' nor 'providers' (wayback/commoncrawl/otx/urlscan). With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, the agent gets no semantic guidance on what values are valid or what the provider selection controls.
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 clear verb ('Run') and resource ('gau archive discovery binary'), specifying it discovers URLs from archives and returns HTTP(S) URLs. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling discovery tools like subfinder_discovery, amass_passive_discovery, or assetfinder_discovery, leaving the agent to infer the passive-archive versus passive-DNS distinction.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'explicitly enabled' hints at a configuration prerequisite but never explains it, so the agent cannot tell under what conditions this tool is appropriate versus other discovery siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.