Scans target URLs for exposed sensitive directories and files. Configurable wordlist and extensions help identify hidden endpoints for security assessments.
敏感目录扫描
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标 URL | |
| wordlist | No | 字典文件路径（不指定则使用内置字典） | |
| extensions | No | 文件扩展名（如 ["php", "asp", "jsp"]） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a vague scanning action with no mention of whether the scan sends HTTP requests, whether it is intrusive or safe, what rate/impact it may have, what it returns, or what permissions or side effects are involved.
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 short, but brevity here comes at the cost of substance. It reads as a title or label rather than a functional description, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 security scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the scan discovers, how to interpret results, whether additional tools or permissions are needed, or what the expected output format is.
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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not clarify when to provide a custom wordlist or how extensions affect scanning, but the schema already documents each parameter.
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 '敏感目录扫描' is essentially a decorated restatement of the tool name ('sensitive directory scan') and does not explain what the tool actually does with the target URL. It neither distinguishes this tool from sibling scanners nor specifies what constitutes a 'sensitive directory' or how results are produced.
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 about when to use directory-scan versus sibling tools like web-fingerprint, extract-endpoints, or vuln-scan. The description gives no context, prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about which scanning scenarios this tool is best suited for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.