Check the operational status of the Intruder API to confirm it is available and responding.
Get the status of the Intruder API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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": "get_statusOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the name's implication ('Get the status'), with no detail on what status entails, whether it is a quick/read-only operation, or what side effects exist. The output schema exists but the description adds no context beyond 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more descriptive.
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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it does not elaborate on the nature of 'status', but the output schema likely covers the response format.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter meaning. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Get the status of the Intruder API', specifying a unique verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific resources (e.g., get_scan, get_user).
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. It does not explain context, prerequisites, or why a user would choose this over the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.