http_method_analysisSend one OPTIONS request to assess allowed HTTP methods on a URL without attempting state-changing requests, aiding safe web security testing.
Send one OPTIONS request and assess advertised methods without attempting state-changing methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| allowed_methods | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real context beyond them: it is exactly one OPTIONS request and deliberately avoids state-changing methods, which tells the agent this is a lightweight, low-impact probe.
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; the mechanism and safety constraint both earn their place.
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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The definition is complete enough for a one-parameter read-only probe, with only the undocumented url parameter as a minor gap.
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 single required 'url' parameter is not described in text at all. The description says 'Send one OPTIONS request' but does not clarify expected URL format, scope, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: sends an OPTIONS request and assesses advertised HTTP methods. The mechanism is unique among siblings (http_probe, headers_analysis), so an agent can distinguish it functionally, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'without attempting state-changing methods' implies a safe enumeration context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many sibling scanning tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.