Defang malicious URLs (e.g., http to hxxp, . to [.]) to prevent accidental clicks while preserving domain for security reporting.
Sanitizes malicious or suspicious URLs into a defanged representation (e.g. converting 'http' to 'hxxp' and '.' to '[.]') to prevent accidental clicks while preserving the domain for security reporting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full or partial URL string to defang. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / url / descriptionPrevious value: -"URL to defang"New value: +"The full or partial URL string to defang."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the transformation strategy with examples and explains the intent ('prevent accidental clicks') and a key constraint ('preserving the domain'). It does not cover edge cases or failure behavior, but for a simple single-input transform this is reasonably transparent.
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?
A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, provides concrete examples, and closes with the rationale. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 single-parameter transformation with no output schema, the description gives enough context to use the tool correctly: what input is expected, what transformation occurs, and why it is useful. Explicit return-value or error-handling details would be a minor improvement, but the core invocation is clear.
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?
The schema already documents the only parameter ('The full or partial URL string to defang') at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the input type and purpose but does not add format details beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Sanitizes') and resource ('malicious or suspicious URLs') and gives concrete transformation examples ('http' to 'hxxp', '.' to '[.]'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic URL decoding/encoding siblings by explaining the defanging goal and the preservation of the domain.
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 description conveys a clear use case: making malicious or suspicious URLs safe for display and security reporting while preserving the domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.