Tech-stack and infrastructure intel for a domain: DNS records, TLS certificate summary, live HTTP probe with hosting/CDN/framework hints (cloudflare, vercel, aws, nginx, nextjs, shopify, ...). [PAID: $0.015 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to fingerprint (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falseInput schema / properties / domainAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Domain to fingerprint (e.g. example.com)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / promptRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Input prompt for this service.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "prompt"
-]New value: +[
+ "domain"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits: it performs a live HTTP probe (an active network operation) and it is a paid call at $0.015 USDC via x402, which covers the auth/payment requirement. It does not disclose failure behavior for unreachable domains, timeouts, or rate limits.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and output categories, followed by the cost tag. The parenthetical vendor lists are slightly heavy but each earns its place by signaling detection breadth.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned artifact categories (DNS, TLS, HTTP probe) so the agent knows what to expect, and it flags the payment requirement. Only error/timeout behavior is left unstated.
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 100% and the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description reinforces what the domain is used for (fingerprinting) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific resource (domain tech-stack/infrastructure intel) and enumerates the concrete outputs: DNS records, TLS certificate summary, live HTTP probe with hosting/CDN/framework hints. An agent can tell it is broader than the sibling liminal-dns-lookup or liminal-http-headers, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.
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 by the phrasing (fingerprint a domain's stack), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it differs from the narrower siblings such as liminal-dns-lookup-xvSPfA or liminal-http-headers-91moXQ.
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.