classify_assetClassify an input as a domain, IP, package, repository, etc. No network calls — instant response. Useful for understanding what an asset is before performing a full lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | The input to classify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds 'No network calls — instant response,' which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not describe the output format or any side effects, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.
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 very concise with three short sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool (one param, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return value format or classification categories, which would help an agent interpret the output.
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 coverage is 100% with one required string parameter described as 'The input to classify.' The description adds meaning by listing example input types (domain, IP, package, repository), which clarifies what the parameter accepts beyond the generic schema description.
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 verb 'classify' and the resource 'input as a domain, IP, package, repository, etc.', providing specific examples. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lookup_security_contact' by emphasizing classification before a full 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 gives explicit context for use: 'Useful for understanding what an asset is before performing a full lookup.' It also notes 'No network calls — instant response' to set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling is different enough.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinct: classify_asset identifies the type of an input, while lookup_security_contact finds security reporting channels. There is no overlap in purpose or functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'classify_asset' and 'lookup_security_contact'. The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
While the server has only two tools, they are well-scoped for its narrow purpose of asset classification and security contact lookup. The count feels slightly thin but is appropriate for the domain.
The two tools form a complete workflow: first classify an asset, then look up its security contact. Minor additions like batch lookup or historical data could enhance coverage, but no essential operation is missing.