Start an async OSINT investigation for a domain. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. Returns an investigationId immediately — poll with osint_investigation_status and retrieve results with osint_investigation_report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the tool is asynchronous (returns ID immediately), requires operator deployment, and degrades to info when unprovisioned. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and no idempotency or destructiveness. The description enriches this with concrete runtime behavior.
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 is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, deployment constraint, and async workflow. No unnecessary words or repetition. The information is front-loaded, making it quick to parse.
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?
The description adequately covers the async nature and result retrieval path, but it lacks details about the investigation scope (what checks are performed), expected timeframes, and the format of the returned investigationId. With no output schema, it should also describe the return value more precisely. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The schema has a single parameter 'query' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'for a domain' implying the query is a domain name, but it does not specify format (e.g., bare domain, with protocol, or subdomain allowed). This minimal addition does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Start an async OSINT investigation for a domain.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like osint_investigate_email_start and osint_investigate_infrastructure_start, which target different entities.
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 includes explicit usage context: 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned.' It also instructs the agent to poll with osint_investigation_status and retrieve results with osint_investigation_report. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
