ProjectDiscovery MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'probe' and 'gather information' imply a read-only reconnaissance operation, it doesn't specify whether this is passive or active, what information is gathered (e.g., headers, status codes, technologies), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any destructive effects. The description is too vague about the tool's actual behavior beyond the high-level purpose.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('probe HTTP/HTTPS servers') followed by the outcome ('gather information'). Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is gathered, the format of results, potential side effects, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior, output format, and appropriate usage context given the security-focused sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'urls' should be formatted, what 'probe' entails for each URL, or how the boolean flags affect the probing behavior. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('HTTP/HTTPS servers'), and specifies the action ('gather information'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by focusing on HTTP/HTTPS server probing rather than DNS enumeration, subdomain discovery, or vulnerability scanning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (like 'katana' which might also interact with web servers).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. Given the sibling tools include various reconnaissance and scanning tools (dnsx, naabu, nuclei, subfinder), the description fails to help an agent choose between them for specific scenarios like web server enumeration versus vulnerability assessment.

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