Copies an Exploit-DB exploit to a specified directory, providing a local working copy for modification and testing.
Copy an exploit to a working directory for modification.
Args: edb_id: Exploit-DB ID number destination: Directory to copy to (default: /tmp)
Returns: Path to copied exploit file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edb_id | Yes | ||
| destination | No | /tmp |
| 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?
No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It states the operation and return value but does not disclose behavior like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or error handling.
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?
Extremely concise: one line for purpose, then structured Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
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?
Simple tool with straightforward purpose. Description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. Could mention behavior if exploit not found or if destination exists, but overall sufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It defines edb_id (ID number) and destination (directory, default /tmp), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Copy' and resource 'exploit to a working directory for modification'. Distinct from sibling tools like exploit_search and exploit_details.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploit_search (to find) or exploit_details (to view). Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.