domain_intel$0.005 per call — Domain due-diligence bundle: RDAP registrar + creation/expiry dates + status, DNS records (A/MX/NS/TXT), and Certificate Transparency history via crt.sh. Use to vet a domain before trusting or linking to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to vet, e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / domainAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Domain to vet, e.g. example.com",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON or key=value input for the tool",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "domain"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.005 per call), which is valuable, but doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or what happens on failure. Cost disclosure is a strong addition, but more behavioral context is needed for a tool with no 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with cost and capabilities, followed by use case. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description enumerates the data returned (registrar, dates, DNS, CT), which is good. However, it doesn't describe the response format or structure. Cost is included, which is helpful. Reasonably complete but could specify output format.
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% and there is only 1 parameter. The example 'example.com' in the schema description adds a bit, but the description itself adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters is not applicable; here, with 1 parameter fully documented, 4 is appropriate for no extra 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Domain due-diligence bundle') and enumerates exactly what it retrieves: RDAP registrar, dates, DNS records, and CT history. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like free_url_check or web_brief.
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?
Explicitly states the use case: 'Use to vet a domain before trusting or linking to it.' This gives clear context, though it doesn't name an alternative or when not to use it.
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.