Identify the technology stack of any website by scanning its URL. Detects frameworks, servers, and additional features to support security reconnaissance.
Web 指纹识别（技术栈检测）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 目标 URL | |
| deep | No | 深度扫描（检测更多特征） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'detection', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state any behavioral traits such as HTTP requests, non-destructiveness, rate limits, or output format. This leaves the agent guessing.
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 brief (one phrase) and front-loaded with purpose, but it lacks any structural elements like usage hints or nuance. While there is no wasted text, the brevity results in under-specification rather than effective 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?
Given the tool has a sibling with a similar name ('web-fingerprint-lite') and no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify its scope, differentiate from alternatives, and indicate the 'deep' parameter's impact. None of this is present, leaving gaps that could cause incorrect usage.
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 both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate parameter handling without providing extra value.
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 specific verb '识别' (identify) and resource 'Web' with elaboration '技术栈检测' (technology stack detection), making the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'web-fingerprint-lite', so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fingerprint-lite. The description only states the purpose without any context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.