url_parameter_analysisAnalyze a URL's query parameters locally to classify security-relevant inputs and hash values instead of returning them.
Classify security-relevant query parameters locally while hashing, rather than returning, their values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| parameters | Yes | ||
| parameter_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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: values are hashed rather than returned and processing happens locally, which tells the agent the output will not contain raw secrets and no external calls are made.
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 privacy-preserving behavior is stated immediately and nothing is redundant.
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 explained, and the hashing/local behavior covers the key behavioral question. However, it says nothing about what classes of parameters are detected, how many, or any limits, leaving the agent with a thin picture of the tool's actual output for a security-analysis operation.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's reference to query parameters implies the input is a URL, partially explaining the 'url' field. It adds no format, length, or encoding detail beyond what the schema's maxLength/minLength constraints already imply.
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 verb (classify) and resource (security-relevant query parameters) with a clear scope qualifier: local processing that hashes instead of returning values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like http_probe or g查询-based tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent must infer that this applies to URLs gathered from other tools in the suite (gau_url_discovery, web_crawler) and there is no routing help against related analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.