Extract API endpoints from any URL directly within SRC Hunter, eliminating the need for external tools during reconnaissance.
提取 API 端点（无需外部工具）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标 URL |
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 must carry the full burden. It only says 'extracts API endpoints' with no information on side effects, network usage, error conditions, or performance. It does not disclose that this might be a read-only operation or that it may require network access. The behavior is opaque beyond the basic action.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It is only one phrase, but it lacks critical detail. While conciseness is good, it does not earn high marks because it omits essential information that would make it useful.
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 the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the output will look like (e.g., list of endpoint URLs), any prerequisites, or limitations. The agent has to guess what 'extract' returns and how it differs from similar tools.
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% for the single parameter 'url', which is described as '目标 URL' (target URL). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond that, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not, for example, clarify URL format or whether it must be reachable.
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 the verb 'extract' and the resource 'API endpoints', but it is vague: it does not specify what tool is avoided ('no external tool' is unclear) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'extract-endpoints' aside from the '-lite' suffix. It does not explain what 'endpoints' means in this context (URLs, paths, etc.).
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 siblings such as 'extract-endpoints' or 'directory-scan'. The phrase 'without external tools' implies a lightweight operation, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The context of when this is preferred is not conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.