Search approved penetration testing experiences by keyword using BM25 ranking with Chinese tokenization. Filter results by scene tags to find relevant records.
搜索渗透测试经验库（仅已审批记录）。基于 BM25 相关性排序，支持中文分词。 参数: keyword: 搜索关键词，如 'WAF绕过'、'SQL注入'、'403' tags_filter: 场景标签过滤（可选），如 ['WAF绕过']，仅返回包含全部指定标签的记录
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | ||
| tags_filter | No |
| 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 burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: results are restricted to approved records and ranked by BM25 with Chinese tokenization. However, it says nothing about result limits, pagination, authentication, or how ranking affects output, leaving key operational traits uncovered.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter block; every line carries information. It is well structured, though the parameter list format is slightly redundant with the schema and could be tightened.
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?
With only two parameters, one optional, and an output schema already defining return values, the description covers the core requirements: scope (approved records), ranking basis, and both parameter meanings. The main remaining gap is routing guidance against sibling search/list tools.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: keyword is explained with concrete examples ('WAF绕过', 'SQL注入', '403') and tags_filter is given clear AND semantics ('仅返回包含全部指定标签的记录'), which the schema does not express. Only the array item type/format remains unstated.
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 (search) and resource (渗透测试经验库 / pen-test experience library) plus an important scope qualifier (only approved records), which separates it from list_pending_experiences and list_deleted_experiences. It does not explicitly name the closest siblings (find_similar, list_all_experiences), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description implies when the tool is useful (keyword/tag search over approved records) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like find_similar or list_all_experiences. Usage must be inferred from the 'search' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.