Run byp4xx to bypass HTTP 403 errors by specifying target URL, HTTP method, and additional arguments for testing access controls.
Execute byp4xx for 403 bypass testing.
Args: url: Target URL returning 403 method: HTTP method additional_args: Extra arguments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| method | No | GET | |
| additional_args | No |
| 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 are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects, output format, or whether the tool is safe. Merely stating 'execute byp4xx' is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity in some areas.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the output represents. It lacks details about the tool's operation and expected results, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'url: Target URL returning 403' and 'method: HTTP method'. This is only a slight improvement over the raw schema.
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 it executes byp4xx for 403 bypass testing, which is specific and distinguishes it from generic tools like api_auth_bypass_test. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.
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 tool versus alternatives such as api_auth_bypass_test or other fuzzing tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.