Analyze a JWT token to decode its header and payload, inspect the signing algorithm, and identify potential security weaknesses.
Analyze a JWT token for weaknesses.
Args: token: The JWT token string to analyze
Returns: Decoded header/payload, algorithm analysis, and potential vulnerabilities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output (decoded header/payload, algorithm analysis, vulnerabilities) but does not confirm whether the token is sent externally or if there are side effects. This is moderately transparent.
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?
The description is very concise, using a clear Args/Returns format that front-loads the purpose. Every sentence is necessary and no verbosity is present.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the output. However, it lacks context about preconditions or source of the JWT, which would be helpful for completeness.
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?
The description adds semantic meaning to the single parameter 'token' by stating it expects a JWT token string, which is not provided in the input schema (0% coverage). This helps the agent understand the expected input beyond the type.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Analyze a JWT token for weaknesses'), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'api_jwt_crack', which focuses on cracking rather than analysis.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_jwt_crack. The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.