Brute-forces Caesar and ROT cipher shifts, then ranks decoded candidates by letter-frequency plausibility to help identify likely plaintext during CTF challenges.
Brute-force Caesar/ROT shifts and rank candidates by letter-frequency plausibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| input_format | No | text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions brute-forcing and ranking but does not disclose the output format (e.g., list of candidates with scores), any limits, or what 'letter-frequency plausibility' means operationally.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the main action and ranking approach, though it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without losing conciseness.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and return value format, and with no annotations or output schema, an agent lacks the information needed to call the tool correctly beyond the most basic case.
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% with two parameters ('data' and 'input_format'). The description implies 'data' is the ciphertext but does not explain the meaning or allowed values of 'input_format' (default 'text'), leaving both parameters semantically underspecified.
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 states a specific verb ('Brute-force') and resource ('Caesar/ROT shifts') and indicates the ranking method by letter-frequency plausibility. It is clear but does not differentiate this tool from siblings like pentest_ctf_decode or pentest_ctf_encode.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pentest_ctf_decode, pentest_ctf_xor, or pentest_ctf_hash_crack. The intended context is implied by 'CTF' and 'Caesar/ROT' but no explicit when/when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.