Get domain popularity rankings from five independent sources: Majestic Million (backlinks), Tranco top 1M (aggregated traffic), Cloudflare Radar (1.1.1.1 DNS query popularity), Cisco Umbrella (OpenDNS query popularity), and Chrome UX Report (real Chrome user traffic).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Domain to check |
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 meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the five independent data sources (e.g., Majestic Million, Cloudflare Radar), indicating the tool performs external multi-source lookups. This goes beyond the generic annotation and helps the agent anticipate the nature of the request.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get domain popularity rankings') and immediately lists the sources. Each parenthetical adds value without redundancy, making the description concise and highly readable.
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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and lists the data sources, allowing an agent to infer the likely output format (per-source rankings). The lack of explicit return value details is acceptable for a tool of this scope, especially with annotations covering safety.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'hostname' parameter with a description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, such as input format constraints or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Get domain popularity rankings' from five specific named sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_rdap or domain_reputation, which serve different functions. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'domain popularity rankings' are specific and unambiguous.
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 clear context on the tool's use case: retrieving popularity rankings from multiple established sources. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. No misleading or contradictory guidance is present.
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.
Several tools overlap heavily, e.g., ip_blocklist_check, ip_reputation, and ip_threat_intel all provide IP threat/blocklist data, while domain_reputation, domain_blocklist_check, and domain_ranking overlap on domain reputation. This creates ambiguity in tool selection.
Tool names follow no single convention. Some use domain prefixes (domain_*, ip_*), others use lookup_* or reverse_lookup_* prefixes, and a few are standalone (ping, registered_domain). The mixed styles make it hard to predict the name for a given operation.
With 46 tools, the server is heavily oversized. It spans many unrelated areas (Bitcoin, Lightning, DNS, IP, MAC, email), making the toolset unwieldy for agents to navigate and choose from efficiently.
The toolset is remarkably complete for a network intelligence and lookup service, covering ASN, IP, domain, DNS, Bitcoin, and Lightning with a wide range of query types, including historical reverse lookups. Minor gaps like missing domain WHOIS or IP CIDR calculation are not significant.
