Loading ToolBench
Open source website reconnaissance and intelligence API
Single tool 'analyze' has a clear verb-noun name and acceptable description (95 chars), but critical gaps undermine quality. Input schema is present with proper types and descriptions for both parameters. However, the tool lacks output schema documentation, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect from the response. No error handling guidance, no recovery paths, and no indication of what happens on failure (network timeout, invalid URL, etc.). The tool performs reconnaissance on arbitrary URLs, which raises security concerns (SSRF risk, rate limiting) that are not addressed in the definition. Baseline: 194 chars avg description (this tool: 95 chars, below median but acceptable); 100% of A+ tools document output schemas (this tool: 0%).
Analyze a website and detect its technology stack, server infrastructure, libraries, and more.
No output schema documented. LLMs cannot predict response structure, fields, or data types. Prevents downstream tool chaining and forces LLMs to guess at response format.
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tool description does not explain what happens on network failure, invalid URL, timeout, or rate limiting. LLMs receive no actionable error context.
SSRF and rate-limiting risks not mitigated in tool definition. Tool accepts arbitrary URLs without documented constraints (allowlist, timeout, retry policy). No mention of rate limits or abuse prevention.
Parameter 'detectors' lacks enum constraint. Accepts free-form comma-separated string; LLMs may hallucinate invalid detector names. Should be an array of enums: ['server', 'subdomain'].
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | C | 61 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Tool description does not explain when to use 'analyze' vs other reconnaissance tools, or what 'technology stack' and 'server infrastructure' concretely return. Ambiguous selection criteria.