Fingerprint the technology behind a website by fetching its homepage. Detects web server, CMS/framework (WordPress, Shopify, Next.js, etc.), CDN, analytics, and returns the page title, final URL after redirects, and key response headers. Use for competitive research and lead enrichment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain or full URL, e.g. shopify.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the action (fetching homepage), what is detected (server, CMS, etc.), and what is returned (title, URL, headers). It does not mention potential issues like timeouts, restrictions on non-HTTP sites, or rate limits. However, the described behavior is accurate and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects.
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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence concisely states the action and deliverables; the second states use cases. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the key returns: web server, CMS/framework, CDN, analytics, page title, final URL, headers. It does not detail failure handling or output format, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
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 single parameter 'domain' has 100% schema coverage with description 'Domain or full URL, e.g. shopify.com.' The tool description adds context by explaining what the tool does with the domain (fetches homepage). Since schema coverage is high, the description's added value is minimal but consistent, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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's purpose: 'Fingerprint the technology behind a website by fetching its homepage.' It lists specific detections (web server, CMS, CDN, analytics) and return elements (page title, final URL, headers). This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_lookup or domain_intel which analyze DNS or domain registration rather than web technology.
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 explicit use cases: 'Use for competitive research and lead enrichment.' It implies when to use (when technology detection is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to siblings. Given sibling tools cover DNS, domain intel, etc., the context is clear, but a brief exclusion note would strengthen guidance.
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.