Scan a target site’s client-side bundles to generate an OpenAPI 3.0 specification of internal, unadvertised API routes, methods, and endpoints for API discovery and auditing.
Scans client-side bundles of a target site to produce a comprehensive OpenAPI 3.0 specification of all internal, unadvertised API routes, methods, and endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target website URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the mechanism (fetching and scanning client-side JS bundles) and the output format, but says nothing about whether this issues many network requests to the target, how long or how deep the scan runs, whether it is passive or detection-prone, or what happens on unreachable/locked-down sites.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the mechanism and the deliverable front-loaded, no filler. It is compact, though the density means the scope constraints an agent needs are simply absent rather than condensed.
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 a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does state the concrete return artifact (an OpenAPI 3.0 spec), which is the key missing piece elsewhere. Remaining gaps about scan scope and failure modes are real but modest for a tool this simple.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('Target website URL'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about what the URL should be — root origin vs a deep page path — which would materially change results, so this is baseline rather than above it.
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?
Specific verb ('Scans client-side bundles') plus a concrete deliverable ('comprehensive OpenAPI 3.0 specification of all internal, unadvertised API routes'). An agent can distinguish it from web_decompile_bundles or web_reconstruct_schema by the OpenAPI-route-catalog output, though those siblings are never named.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (target reachability, auth, scope of crawl). Nothing steers the agent between this and adjacent siblings like web_reconstruct_schema or web_decompile_bundles, so selection is left entirely to inference from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.