OWASP Pentest Guide Knowledge Base

guide_recommend_candidates

Recommend candidate penetration tests for a target system profile based on OWASP testing guides.

Instructions

Produce CANDIDATE tests for a target system profile. This is not a verified pentest plan and nothing in the output has been executed -- see the uncertainty field.

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_recommend_candidates"
  }
}

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

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is unexecuted and unverified, and directs the agent to the 'uncertainty' field, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately adding a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and a single complex parameter, the description is moderately complete but lacks detail on what 'candidates' means, how to interpret the output, and the role of optional parameters like guides or include_inferred_relationships.

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 has 0% schema coverage and does not explain any parameter beyond mentioning the target system profile. The input schema is relatively self-explanatory, but the description fails to add value for the nested objects like guides or include_inferred_relationships.

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 it produces candidate tests for a target system profile, using a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like guide_list_tests, it could explicitly differentiate from 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context by stating the output is not a verified pentest plan and nothing has been executed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server