Add a tag to a target to organize security scans. Specify the target ID and tag name.
Add a tag to a target.
Args:
target_id: The ID of the target to add the tag to
name: The name of the tag to add (max 40 characters)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "create_target_tagOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the max 40 character constraint for the name, which is not in the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the tag already exists. With no annotations, the description carries more burden but only partially fulfills it.
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?
Very concise, one-line summary plus parameter descriptions. No wasted words, though the docstring format with 'Args' is slightly redundant given the schema.
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?
A mutation tool with no output schema description (though it exists), no error scenarios, and no mention of prerequisites like target existence. Missing context that would help an agent use it reliably.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains target_id as 'The ID of the target' and name as 'The name of the tag to add (max 40 characters)', adding the max length but little else. Nearly identical to parameter names.
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 'Add a tag to a target' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_target_tag (opposite) and create_targets (different resource).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether to create a tag first or list existing tags. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.