Fetch the ranked candidate domains (the discovery CheckResult) for an async run started with discover_brand_domains_start. Returns notReady while the discovery is still in-flight; the discovery result once complete. Owner-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes | Operation ID returned by discover_brand_domains_start. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the notReady interim state, eventual result delivery, and 'Owner-scoped' access restriction. This transparently sets expectations for an async polling operation.
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?
Two sentences, no superfluous text. Every phrase earns its place: what is fetched, the source run, the polling states, and the scoping constraint. Information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 single-parameter async polling tool, the description covers the core lifecycle (in-flight vs. complete), the data returned, and the owner scope. It lacks an explicit output structure, but given no output schema exists, the reference to 'discovery CheckResult' offers enough context for a competent agent. Sibling tools further clarify its role.
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 100% with a single parameter (operationId) that is already described as 'Operation ID returned by discover_brand_domains_start.' The description reinforces this by referencing the start tool, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('ranked candidate domains (the discovery CheckResult)') tied to an async run. It explicitly names the starting tool (discover_brand_domains_start), distinguishing this findings-retrieval tool from sibling tools like the start/status variants.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool: after starting an async run, and it describes the polling behavior ('Returns notReady while the discovery is still in-flight; the discovery result once complete'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the lifecycle context and sibling names make the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.
The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).
With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.
The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.
