OWASP Pentest Guide Knowledge Base

guide_find_by_feature

Locate OWASP pentest guides test cases by specifying feature keywords (e.g., oauth, webview). Returns cases matching any term, with matched terms highlighted.

Instructions

Find test cases matching ANY of one or more feature keywords (OR semantics; e.g. oauth, webview, agent-tools). Each result lists which terms matched in matched_terms.

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_find_by_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses OR semantics and matched_terms but omits behavioral traits like authentication needs, read-only nature, rate limits, or failure modes. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with key semantics and examples, no filler. Earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Has output schema to explain return values, but description lacks edge cases (e.g., no matches) and parameter constraints. Adequate for a simple search but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no per-parameter details beyond field names. Parameters like limit and guides remain unexplained, forcing the agent to rely on names and types alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool finds test cases by feature keywords with OR semantics, provides examples (e.g., oauth, webview), and mentions result structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guide_search or guide_browse_category.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context (search with OR semantics) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. For a feature-driven search, this is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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

Deploy Server