OWASP Pentest Guide Knowledge Base

guide_list_tests

List test cases from OWASP testing guides by guide, version, and category. Use cursor to paginate through results.

Instructions

List test cases in a guide/version, optionally filtered by category. Cursor is the offset as a string.

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_list_tests"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination via cursor as offset, which is useful. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. The output schema exists but behavior beyond pagination is unclear.

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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences (18 words), with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details on required guide, limit range, and version parameter, leaving the agent guessing. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains cursor and mentions category filtering, but fails to describe guide, limit, and version parameters. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 lists test cases in a guide/version, with optional category filtering. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like guide_get_related_tests.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes a basic usage hint about cursor.

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

Deploy Server