nuclei_scanRun the locally installed Nuclei scanner against one authorized target when explicitly enabled to detect vulnerabilities using tags and severity filters.
Run the locally installed Nuclei scanner against one authorized target when explicitly enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| severity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| finding_count | 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that – a locally installed binary is required and the tool is gated behind an explicit-enable flag – but says nothing about scan duration, rate limits, or what the scan actually issues against the target. Adequate, not rich.
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 repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the agent needs rather than by tight writing.
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 not be described, and the safety annotations are good. However, for a three-parameter active scanner with 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, scan scope/duration expectations, and any routing guidance among the many sibling scanners – too thin for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at the required "target" argument via "one authorized target" and adds nothing about the tags or severity filters, which are the parameters an agent most needs explained (accepted syntax, template selection, severity values).
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 ("Run the locally installed Nuclei scanner") plus a scope constraint ("one authorized target"), which distinguishes it from template-less siblings like http_probe or web_directory_scan. It stops short of explicitly naming when another scanner is the better pick, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.
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?
"when explicitly enabled" implies a precondition (the scanner must be turned on/authorized) but never says when to choose Nuclei over other scan tools such as cors_scan, secret_pattern_analysis, or web_directory_scan. Usage is implied rather than stated; no exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.