Burp Suite MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the scan is asynchronous (implied by wait_for_scan_completion sibling), duration expectations, destructive potential, or auth requirements. Only behavioral hint is the parenthetical '(passed to API if supported)' regarding scope handling.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. The 'Args:' format efficiently delivers parameter documentation necessitated by the empty schema. Main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Minor mechanical feel due to docstring-style formatting, but appropriate for the information density required.

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?

Despite having an output schema (covering return values), the description inadequately contextualizes the tool within the evident workflow. Given siblings like wait_for_scan_completion and check_security_scan_progress, the description should explicitly state that this initiates a potentially long-running asynchronous scan requiring subsequent monitoring, which is absent.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting both parameters: urls is a 'List of URLs to scan' and scope is 'Optional scope configuration'. However, 'scope configuration' lacks semantic depth—no indication of expected format, valid values, or purpose. Baseline compensation achieved but not enriched semantics.

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 'Scan URL(s) for security vulnerabilities', identifying the verb (scan), resource (URLs), and objective (security vulnerabilities). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like check_burp_connectivity or cancel_scan, though it could explicitly state it 'initiates' a scan to contrast with check_security_scan_progress.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_security_scan_progress or wait_for_scan_completion. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., checking connectivity first) or workflow sequencing, which is critical given the sibling tools suggest an async multi-step process.

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