Detect whether a target URL is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) by probing its responses. Identify WAF presence to assess security posture before penetration testing.
Detect Web Application Firewall (WAF) on a target URL.
Args: url: Target URL to test for WAF
Returns: WAF detection results
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | 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 fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool makes network requests, potential impact, or what constitutes 'detection'. It only states it returns 'WAF detection results' without detail.
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 short and structured with Args/Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more informative within the same length.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about behavior and typical results, which would help an agent use it effectively.
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 parameter 'url' has no schema description, and the description only states 'Target URL to test for WAF', which adds minimal meaning. It does not specify expected format (e.g., http://), or whether IPs are accepted.
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 tool detects Web Application Firewall (WAF) on a target URL, using a specific verb 'Detect' and resource 'WAF on target URL'. It is distinct from sibling fingerprinting tools like 'fingerprint_headers' and 'fingerprint_url' which focus on other aspects.
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, such as other fingerprinting tools or other reconnaissance tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for best use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.