Burp Suite 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. It successfully discloses that the severity parameter filters issues in the results (behavioral trait). However, it omits other operational context like read-only safety, error handling for invalid task_ids, or rate limit 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?

Highly efficient structure with zero waste. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by Args section. Every sentence earns its place; the severity filter documentation doubles as parameter description and behavioral disclosure.

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?

Appropriately complete given the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation). Input parameters are fully covered. Minor gap: does not state the read-only/safe nature of the operation, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Documents both parameters thoroughly: task_id includes format guidance ('numeric ID or full path') and source context ('from an initiated scan'), while severity enumerates valid values ('low, info, medium, high') and default behavior ('all').

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?

States specific action (retrieves) and target (scan progress and details) clearly. Mentions the required task_id input. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_scan_summary or wait_for_scan_completion, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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?

Implies prerequisite by stating task_id comes 'from an initiated scan,' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scan_summary or wait_for_scan_completion. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided.

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