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 adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the aggregation level ('total issues by severity'), indicating the output is counts rather than detailed findings. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only nature), error handling for invalid task IDs, or whether this consumes API quotas.

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 tight with zero waste: one sentence for purpose, one line for the parameter explanation. The 'Args:' format is efficient and scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 (single parameter), the presence of an output schema (handling return value documentation), and the description's compensation for zero schema coverage, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the essential semantic and usage context needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% (only title 'Task Id' exists). The description compensates effectively by explaining that task_id is 'from an initiated scan,' providing critical semantic context about the parameter's origin and expected value source that the schema lacks.

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 verb (Get), resource (scan results), and specific scope (high-level summary, total issues by severity). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_security_scan_progress (which checks status) and scan_urls_for_vulnerabilities (which initiates), though it could explicitly clarify this is for completed/completing scans.

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 implies prerequisites by noting the task_id comes from 'an initiated scan,' suggesting when to use it (after starting a scan). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_security_scan_progress or wait_for_scan_completion, and doesn't mention if the scan must be finished.

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