ProjectDiscovery MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists the workflow components, it doesn't describe critical behavioral traits like execution time, resource requirements, rate limits, permission needs, or what happens when the tool fails. For a complex 11-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool actually behaves.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists all workflow components without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the comprehensive nature of the workflow. Every component mentioned earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a workflow tool that orchestrates multiple security scanning components, users need more context about outputs and operational behavior to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, dependencies, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool executes a 'complete bug bounty reconnaissance workflow' and lists specific components: subdomain discovery, DNS resolution, port scanning, HTTP probing, crawling, and vulnerability scanning. This provides a clear verb+resource+scope combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dnsx, httpx, katana, naabu, nuclei, and subfinder, which appear to be individual components of this comprehensive workflow.

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 description implies this tool should be used for comprehensive bug bounty reconnaissance rather than individual tasks, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this workflow is preferred over running individual tools separately. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.