Start an async supply-chain OSINT investigation for a query. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. Returns an investigationId immediately — poll with osint_investigation_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the async nature, immediate return of investigationId, polling process, and the degradation behavior when unprovisioned. 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?
The description is two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical constraints and follow-up instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the async pattern and deployment constraints. However, it lacks guidance on the query parameter's semantics and does not describe the investigation report contents or how to interpret the investigationId, which are gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'query'. The description only mentions 'for a query' without specifying what constitutes a valid query (e.g., domain, company name, etc.). This fails to add meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent uncertain about input format.
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 states 'Start an async supply-chain OSINT investigation for a query,' which clearly defines the verb (start), resource (supply-chain OSINT investigation), and async behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like osint_investigate_domain_start by specifying the supply-chain scope.
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 specifies 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned,' providing clear context on when the tool is usable and its fallback behavior. It also mentions polling with osint_investigation_status. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative investigation start tools or state when not to use this tool.
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.
