Scans an IP address or hostname to audit DNSSEC safety, SSL expiration status, HTTP security headers, and geodata compliance. Matches: network security audit, scan website ports, VPS shield test, audit host headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Target domain or IP address to audit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the scanning activities, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, may trigger alerts, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The term 'audit' implies inspection, but further details are absent.
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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides useful keywords. Every part is meaningful and efficiently structured.
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 output schema), the description adequately explains the input and purpose. However, it does not clarify the return format or possible errors, which would enhance completeness for an agent.
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 a description for the 'host' parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description reiterates the same information without adding extra meaning or constraints, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 specific verb 'Scans' and the resources 'IP address or hostname' with a detailed list of audit items (DNSSEC safety, SSL expiration, HTTP security headers, geodata compliance). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a comprehensive scan, unlike individual audit tools.
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 includes 'Matches' keywords that suggest use cases like 'network security audit' and 'scan website ports', providing context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative sibling tools, limiting full 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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.
With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.
While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.