Retrieve HTTP performance statistics for a scan, including requests, cache hits, retries, errors, status-code breakdown, and average latency to diagnose scan behavior.
Get the HTTP statistics of a scan (requests, cache hits, coalesced requests, retries, errors, status-code breakdown, average latency).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and lists returned metrics, but says nothing about whether the scan must be finished, what happens with an invalid or in-progress scan_id, whether data is cached or live, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the metric list parenthetically appended. There is no filler and nothing redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the metric enumeration aligns with it. However, for a tool that hinges on a scan_id, the missing guidance on sourcing that identifier and on scan-state preconditions leaves a real gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter, scan_id, is completely undocumented. The description does not explain the expected format or, more importantly, where the agent obtains a scan_id (presumably from fsv_scan or fsv_list_scans). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the HTTP statistics of a scan') and enumerates the metrics returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from fsv_list_scans or fsv_get_report. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the resource specificity is strong.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fsv_get_report, fsv_compare_scans, or fsv_target_trend, and no preconditions (e.g., that the scan must exist or be complete). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and metric list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.