One-call full dossier on a domain: registration (RDAP), DNS records, email deliverability, and website tech stack, combined into a single report. Use for fast lead qualification, company research, or recon without four separate calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. stripe.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does but lacks details on error behavior, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate but not fully transparent.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Covers the four main areas of the combined report, but without an output schema, the description could elaborate on the report structure or returned fields.
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 description only repeats the example (e.g., stripe.com) without adding constraints, formatting, or nuances beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it is a 'one-call full dossier' combining multiple data sources (RDAP, DNS, email, tech stack) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup or subdomains.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'for fast lead qualification, company research, or recon without four separate calls', implying alternatives are separate individual lookups.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of domain intelligence: DNS records, registration, combined report, email authentication, subdomains, and tech stack. There is no overlap; even the domain_report is a composite that doesn't conflict with individual tools.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern varies: some are noun_verb (dns_lookup), noun_noun (domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, tech_stack), or single noun (subdomains). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.
Six tools is an ideal scope for a domain intelligence server. Each tool adds unique value without redundancy, covering registration, DNS, email, subdomains, tech stack, plus a combined report.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of domain intelligence: registration details, DNS records, subdomain discovery, email deliverability, and website technology fingerprinting. No obvious missing capabilities for typical lead qualification or research workflows.