Retrieve the final report of a completed OSINT investigation by investigationId. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| investigationId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'Operator-deploy only' suggests authentication requirements, and the degradation behavior clarifies how the tool behaves under non-ideal conditions. No contradiction 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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The information is dense and necessary. One small improvement: splitting the two sentences or rephrasing for clarity could help, but overall it is efficient.
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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it does, preconditions (completed, provisioned), and deployment context. It does not mention error messages or what exactly 'degrades to info' means, but for this complexity level it is largely sufficient.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does mention 'investigationId' as the parameter but only restates its name without adding format, origin, or validation details beyond the schema constraints (min/max length). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter and minimal added semantics.
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 retrieves the final report of a completed OSINT investigation by investigationId, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like osint_investigation_status (status only) and osint_investigate_*_start (starts investigations).
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 gives explicit context: 'Operator-deploy only' and mentions degradation behavior ('degrades to info when unprovisioned or not yet complete'). It does not, however, name alternative tools for cases when the investigation is not complete or for listing investigations.
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.
