Poll the status of an OSINT investigation by investigationId. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. Returns current status (running | completed | failed) and progress metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| investigationId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds beyond annotations by noting the deployment restriction and degradation behavior, and explicitly states the return fields (status and progress metadata). 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?
Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every piece of information is relevant and earned. Efficient and clear.
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 simple status poll with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, deployment context, and return fields. However, it lacks detail on the format of progress metadata, possible error states, or how the 'degrades to info' behavior manifests. Given the simplicity, it is mostly adequate but not fully complete.
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% for the investigationId parameter, meaning no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain the parameter beyond its name and schema constraints (min/maxLength). It adds no meaning about what constitutes a valid investigationId or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the schema 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 polls the status of an OSINT investigation by investigationId. It uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource (status of investigation), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like osint_investigation_report (which returns full reports) and osint_investigate_*_start tools (which initiate 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 provides explicit context: 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned.' This guides usage under specific deployment conditions. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like osint_investigation_report or other status tools, so it misses a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statement.
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.
