OWASP Pentest Guide Knowledge Base

guide_explain_relationship

Explain a relationship edge between two tests, providing source type, rationale, confidence, and review status for the connection.

Instructions

Explain one relationship edge: source test, target test, type, and full provenance (source_type, rationale, confidence, review_status).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "guide_explain_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions it 'explains' but does not state whether it's read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Minimal disclosure beyond output fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, but it is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be more concise by removing redundant listing of fields, but overall acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists but description fails to clarify how to specify the relationship (by IDs vs relationship_id). For a tool with three optional input fields, more detail is needed to avoid ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description lists 'source test, target test, type, and full provenance' as outputs, not inputs. The actual parameters (source_test_id, target_test_id, relationship_id) are not explained, and their purpose is unclear from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool explains a relationship edge and lists the provenance fields it provides. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single relationship rather than listing or searching, though not explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like guide_get_related_tests or guide_find_by_feature. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server