Returns the caller's recurring brand-audit watches: watchId, domain, interval, webhook presence, last-run time, and active state. Owner-scoped. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| passed | Yes | ||
| partial | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| checkStatus | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying the owner-scoping constraint and listing the exact fields returned. It does not repeat the annotation flags, and it provides additional context (e.g., what data is visible) that the annotations alone do not convey.
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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the data returned. The second sentence adds scope and safety. No filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool has no parameters, a complete output schema (as indicated by context signals), and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what data it returns, its scope, and its read-only nature. There are no missing pieces for an agent to correctly select and invoke this simple list operation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule, 0 parameters earns a 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because none exist.
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 clear verb ('Returns') and specific resource ('recurring brand-audit watches') and enumerates the fields returned (watchId, domain, interval, webhook presence, last-run time, active state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_brand_audit_watch and delete_brand_audit_watch by specifically mentioning 'owner-scoped' and 'read-only'.
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 explicitly states 'Owner-scoped' and 'Read-only,' which implies usage context (viewing only your own watches, no mutations). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling set includes separate tools for registration and deletion, making the intended use case 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.
