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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining that the tool evaluates attack paths with severity, feasibility, steps, and mitigations, which provides insight into the nature of the analysis. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching, performance characteristics, or whether it relies on external data sources beyond what annotations and schema imply.
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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Analyze current DNS posture') and enumerates key output aspects in a compact list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 complexity (simulating attack paths), the description provides a solid overview of purpose and expected output, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The schema documents all parameters. It lacks explicit mention of caching or relationship to other tools, but for the scope of this tool, the description is reasonably 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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, but it does mention 'DNS posture' which loosely relates to the 'domain' parameter. No additional clarity is needed.
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 a specific verb ('Analyze' and 'enumerate') and a specific resource ('current DNS posture'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling check_* tools by focusing on attack path enumeration with concrete outputs (severity, feasibility, steps, mitigations). It unambiguously describes what the tool does.
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 implies usage context (use when you want to analyze attack paths from DNS posture), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Given the large sibling list, some explicit guidance would help, but the purpose is understandable enough to infer usage.
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.
