OWASP Pentest Guide Knowledge Base

guide_get_test

Retrieve an OWASP test case by its versioned id, canonical id, alias, or slug. Includes full content, relationships, and inferred information.

Instructions

Fetch one test case by versioned id, canonical id, alias, or slug.

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_get_test"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0

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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, error handling (e.g., not found), or side effects. The boolean flags that affect behavior are not mentioned.

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 with no redundant words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and multiple parameters, the description only covers the identifier aspect. It omits details about optional flags, expected output, and error conditions, making it insufficient for complete understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds meaning to test_id by listing allowed identifier types, but does not explain the three boolean parameters (include_inferred, include_full_content, include_relationships). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters, but it only partially addresses one.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'one test case', and specifies multiple identifier types (versioned id, canonical id, alias, slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guide_list_tests (list) and guide_search (search).

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?

Implicitly tells when to use: when you have one of the specified identifiers and need a single test case. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context with siblings is clear given the specific identification methods.

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

Deploy Server