sql_injection_scanScan custom Drupal code at a given path for SQL injection vulnerabilities, helping identify unsafe database queries during security audits.
Scan for SQL injection vulnerabilities in custom code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only scan but never states it is safe/non-mutating, does not say what gets scanned (custom modules vs themes), whether results are cached, or what triggers a finding. Only the bare purpose is disclosed.
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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the absence of structured documentation elsewhere.
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 return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should clarify scan scope, target expectations, and safety profile. It leaves too much to inference for a security tool.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'custom code' hints that path points at a custom-code location rather than the entire site, which is some semantic value, but no format, type, relative-vs-absolute, or directory expectations are given.
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 (scan) and resource (SQL injection vulnerabilities) with a clear scope qualifier ('custom code'). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like security_scan or other scans, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it differs from.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many adjacent security tools (security_scan, xss_scan, security_audit, code_audit_phpstan). No prerequisites, no mention of what 'custom code' includes or excludes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.