Retrieve findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan by scanId. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. The scanId is required so reads can be owner-scoped; target and provider filters are optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanId | Yes | ||
| target | No | ||
| providers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the read is owner-scoped via scanId, the tool degrades to info when unprovisioned, and that filters are optional. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description clarifies scoping and deployment behavior without contradiction.
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, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence. It covers deployment constraints, required parameter, and optional filters without extra fluff. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the first two sentences.
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 has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, required scoping, deployment behavior, and optional filters. It is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly, though it could mention the return format or pagination behavior if applicable.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scanId parameter is required for owner-scoped reads, and that target and providers are optional filters. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, which only provides type and length constraints. The description gives functional meaning to each parameter.
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 findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan using a scanId. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'scan_buckets_start' or 'scan_buckets_status', though the distinction is implicit from the context of retrieving results vs. starting or checking status.
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 mentions 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned', providing a deployment constraint. It states the scanId is required for owner-scoped reads, and target and provider filters are optional. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'scan_buckets_status' or other finding-related tools, nor does it state 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.
