domain-intelligence-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific DNS record types returned, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention error cases or resolver behavior, but this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 highly concise: two sentences covering purpose and output, plus one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description names the return record types, which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter tool. However, it does not describe response structure or failure modes, leaving a small gap.

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 input schema provides no description, but the description fully compensates with a clear definition and a concrete example for the single 'domain' parameter. This exceeds the baseline needed for undocumented schema parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and targeted resource 'DNS records for a domain', and enumerates record types (A, AAAA, MX, CNAME, TXT), making it clearly distinct from siblings like ip_geolocation or whois_lookup.

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 tool's purpose implies its usage scenario (DNS lookups), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives, nor mention of exclusions. This is adequate but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description provides additional behavioral details by stating specific return fields (country, city, ISP), which is useful given the absence of an output schema. It does not disclose potential edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a structured Args section for the parameter. Every element serves a purpose with no redundant text, making it both efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, and output fields. It lacks error/edge-case handling (e.g., invalid IPs), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is not a major gap.

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 only specifies ip as a string with no format, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by labeling the parameter as an IP address and providing an explicit format example ('8.8.8.8'). This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and expected input.

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 uses a specific verb 'look up' with a clear resource 'IP address' and explicitly lists the returned fields (country, city, ISP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup, ssl_check, and whois_lookup, all of which serve different purposes.

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 purpose clearly implies when to use the tool: when geolocation data for an IP address is needed. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough and sibling tools are distinct in their functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, reducing the need for safety disclosures. The description adds value by specifying the return payload (issuer, expiry, validity), but it does not detail potential errors, timeouts, or exact output formatting. This is a moderate amount of extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an args line, with the purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrases exist; each word contributes meaning.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core function and return fields. It omits edge cases like invalid domains or certificate errors, but these are not critical given the annotations and lack of an output schema. Adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only defines 'domain' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the parameter as 'Domain name' and providing an example ('example.com'), which clarifies the expected format. This is essential for correct usage and goes 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks SSL certificates for a domain and lists the return fields (issuer, expiry, validity). The specific verb 'Check' and resource 'SSL certificate' make the purpose unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like dns_lookup and whois_lookup.

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 the tool is used when SSL certificate information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns registrar, dates, and nameservers, providing some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, data freshness, or external dependencies.

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 highly concise: two sentences for the main purpose and return fields, plus a clear argument explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and the required argument, without unnecessary detail.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining the 'domain' parameter with an example ('example.com'). This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, giving the agent clear guidance on the expected input.

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 looks up WHOIS information for a domain, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup, ip_geolocation, and ssl_check.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicit. The description says what the tool does but does not mention when to use it or provide alternatives or exclusions. Sibling differentiation is evident from the tool name and description, but no direct guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.