Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server --skill tool-defs-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-serverWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00132 | $0.02858 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00066 | $0.01429 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00572 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00286 |
Grade A, and why
tool-defs-analysis scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 229 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Every string in a tool/resource/prompt definition is part of an LLM-facing API contract. The model reads the description, every parameter .describe(), the output schema, the recovery hints — and decides what to call and how. Definition language drifts: an internal mapping leaks into a parameter doc during a fix, a self-referential output description survives a refactor, a default that suited the developer at scaffold time stays after the typical call shape changes.
This skill is the review-time pass for that drift. Read each definition the way a mid-tier model with no project context would — can it pick the tool, fill the fields, and recover from errors using only the rendered schema?
| Skill | Lens |
|---|---|
design-mcp-server |
Authoring rules at write-time |
field-test |
Behavior testing + a narrow 3-category leak audit |
security-pass |
Injection, scopes, input sinks |
tool-defs-analysis (this) |
LLM-facing language across the existing surface |
field-test already audits descriptions for implementation leaks, meta-coaching, and consumer-aware phrasing during its catalog step — that's a fast shallow pass alongside live tool calls. This skill is the deeper review: 12 categories, every field, every recovery hint, every default value, with file:line citations.
Read-only. This skill produces a report; the maintainer applies fixes. While running it, do not run git, do not stage or commit, do not update the changelog, do not run devcheck, do not invoke wrapup or release workflows. Fixes flow through the normal authoring path (edit the definition, then re-run this skill if you want to verify).
When to Use
- After a polish session or refactor that touched definitions
- Before a release, alongside
polish-docs-metaandsecurity-pass - When the user says "review my tool definitions", "audit descriptions", "are my tool descriptions any good"
- After scaffolding a new server but before it ships
Skip during initial authoring — add-tool and design-mcp-server cover that. Skip diff-only review — read each file in full so drift across the whole definition surfaces.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 229 lines · 132 tokens per session scan A 9de6381cd974
tool-defs-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository wallieinformal201/pentest-mcp-server (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 132 tokens to every session and 2,858 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
nw-review-workflow
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.