Start an async OSINT investigation for a username (cross-platform presence, breach correlation). Owner/enterprise tier only — people-centric OSINT is restricted to prevent misuse. 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?
Annotations offer little behavioral detail (e.g., readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds significant context: it's asynchronous (returns immediately), requires owner/enterprise tier (authorization), and involves people-centric OSINT restrictions. It also outlines the downstream polling/report steps, which is not captured in 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?
Three sentences, each with distinct value: purpose/scope, access restriction, and follow-up workflow. No filler or repetition; information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter async start tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, who can use it, immediate return value, and subsequent steps. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 only defines 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying the tool is 'for a username', so the query parameter's purpose is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state the parameter name or format, leaving a small gap.
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 function: 'Start an async OSINT investigation for a username' with specific scope ('cross-platform presence, breach correlation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like osint_investigate_email_start and osint_investigate_domain_start by explicitly targeting usernames.
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?
Provides clear context for when it can be used ('Owner/enterprise tier only') and the async workflow ('Returns an investigationId immediately — poll with osint_investigation_status and retrieve results with osint_investigation_report'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the resource type (username) implicitly differentiates it from other OSINT start tools.
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.
