Poll the status of an async brand-domain discovery started with discover_brand_domains_start. Returns status (queued | running | completed | failed) and progress. Owner-scoped — operationIds owned by other principals surface as notFound.
| 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 establish the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned status enum, progress reporting, and the owner-scoped behavior (operationIds of other principals surface as notFound). No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return values and a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler.
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?
Given no output schema, the description appropriately discloses return content (status and progress) and the notFound behavior. It lacks a bit of detail on the progress format or next-step guidance after completion, but for a simple status polling tool, it is largely complete and well-scoped.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances the operationId parameter by explaining that operationIds owned by other principals surface as notFound, which is not in the schema. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's own description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and clearly identifies the resource ('status of an async brand-domain discovery'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing discover_brand_domains_start as the initiation point, making its role as a status poller unambiguous.
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?
It clearly indicates that this tool is for polling status after starting an async discovery with a specific companion tool. The owner-scoping note provides useful context about access, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus other status or findings tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
