Start an async cloud-bucket discovery scan for a target domain. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. Returns a scanId immediately — poll progress with scan_buckets_status and retrieve results with scan_buckets_findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| providers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and has side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about deployment requirements and the async nature (returns scanId immediately). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'degrades to info' means precisely, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, deployment nuance, and async workflow. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No redundant or filler text.
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?
The description covers the basic workflow and deployment constraint, but given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, it could be more complete. It does not specify the format of the returned scanId, mention cancellation or timeouts, or list valid providers. Overall, it provides a solid foundation but leaves moderate gaps.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description only clarifies that 'target' is a domain, but does not explain the 'providers' parameter (its purpose, allowed values, or format). Despite having only two parameters, the description fails to add semantic meaning to both, leaving the agent to guess about providers.
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 action: 'Start an async cloud-bucket discovery scan for a target domain.' It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('cloud-bucket discovery scan'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like scan_buckets_status and scan_buckets_findings by being the initiation step.
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 deployment context ('Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned') and explains the async workflow (poll with scan_buckets_status, retrieve with scan_buckets_findings). This guides the agent on when to use this tool and how to follow up, though it does not explicitly contrast with other start tools among the siblings.
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.
