ProjectDiscovery MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'fast web crawler' implies performance characteristics and 'discovering endpoints and paths' suggests read-only reconnaissance, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether authentication is needed, rate limits, what happens with malformed URLs, output format, or error handling. The description doesn't adequately compensate for missing annotations.

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 (7 words) and front-loaded with all essential information. Every word earns its place: 'fast' sets expectations, 'web crawler' defines the category, and 'for discovering endpoints and paths' specifies the exact purpose without redundancy.

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 web crawling tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'endpoints and paths' means in practice, how results are returned, error conditions, or security considerations. The high schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more operational context.

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 three parameters (urls, depth, scope) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('crawler for discovering') and resource ('endpoints and paths'), and the qualifier 'fast' adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like httpx or nuclei, which might have overlapping web reconnaissance functions.

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. With siblings like httpx (HTTP probing) and nuclei (vulnerability scanning) available, there's no indication of katana's specific use cases, prerequisites, or limitations compared to these tools.

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