Analyze current DNS posture and enumerate specific attack paths an adversary could exploit, with severity, feasibility, steps, and mitigations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g., example.com) | |
| format | No | Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted. | |
| force_refresh | No | Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / force_refreshAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that the response contains severity, feasibility, exploitation steps and mitigations — non-trivial given there is no output schema.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler; the core purpose and result shape are front-loaded and nothing is repeated from structured fields.
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 read-only composite analysis tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope and return content. It could add expected cost/latency or a hint that a prior scan makes the analysis richer, but no essential calling information is missing.
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 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
Specific verb pair (analyze, enumerate) plus a named resource (DNS attack paths) and the shape of the result (severity, feasibility, steps, mitigations). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-signal check_* siblings without naming any of them.
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 framing as an adversary-path enumeration implies this is the synthesis step rather than a point check, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., run scan_domain first), or when-not guidance is given.
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.