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. It mentions 'Fast vulnerability scanner' but lacks critical details like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a scanning tool with potential security implications.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a vulnerability scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or result interpretation, which are crucial for effective tool invocation in a security 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (targets, templates, severity). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining template sources or severity implications, resulting in a baseline score.

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 as a 'Fast vulnerability scanner using YAML-based templates,' which specifies the verb (scan), resource (vulnerabilities), and method (YAML templates). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like httpx or naabu, which might also perform scanning-related functions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing to bug_bounty_workflow or subfinder for different scanning phases, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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