Verify whether a domain, URL, or IP is within authorized scope before running security tests. Prevent out-of-scope scanning by checking target authorization upfront.
检查目标是否在授权测试范围内
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | 目标（域名/URL/IP） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens when the target is authorized or unauthorized, whether the operation is read-only, or what response the agent should expect.
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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose immediately.
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?
With no output schema and no behavioral details, an agent cannot know how to interpret the tool's result or how to act on it. For a preflight authorization check, this is a meaningful gap.
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 100% and the target parameter already includes '域名/URL/IP'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 '检查目标是否在授权测试范围内' states a specific verb (check) and a specific resource/condition (whether a target is within authorized testing scope). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling scanning, export, and configuration tools.
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 intended use is implied: check a target before engaging in security testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it should be called before other scanning tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.