v1_security_redteam_authorized_scanRun authorized red team security scans against a target URL using scoped tests and provided authorization evidence.
Redteam Authorized Scan
Remote route: POST /v1/security/redteam/authorized-scan (0.25 USD x402/base/usdc on eip155:8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_url | No | ||
| authorized_tests | No | ||
| scope_description | No | ||
| authorization_evidence | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — this is a paid x402 call costing 0.25 USD on eip155:8453 — which annotations do not convey. However, it omits what the scan does to the target, whether it is actively intrusive, and any rate/time limits.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, and the route/payment sentence carries real information. But the opening line is pure title duplication that earns no place, and the overall brevity comes from under-specification rather than tightness.
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 active, paid, open-world security scanning tool with an output schema (return values are covered) but four undocumented parameters. The description supplies the price and route but leaves the agent unable to know what the scan does, what authorization proof is required, or how to populate any argument.
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 gives no parameter guidance whatsoever. The four parameters (target_url, authorized_tests, scope_description, authorization_evidence) have only bare titles and empty defaults, so the description is the only place this meaning could be added and it adds none.
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 repeats the title verbatim ('Redteam Authorized Scan') and adds only the HTTP route and payment line. It never states what the scan actually does — vulnerability probing, recon, exploit checks — or what the scan produces, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like v1_security_threatmodel or v1_security_dependency_risk.
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 prerequisite guidance at all. The presence of an 'authorization_evidence' parameter suggests a legal-authorization precondition, but the description never says the caller must supply or hold one before invoking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.