securitytrails_whoisWHOIS for . Returns registrar, creation/expiration dates, and registration contacts. Example: securitytrails_whois({ hostname: "github.com", _apiKey: "your-key" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | SecurityTrails API key | |
| hostname | Yes | Apex domain / hostname, e.g. "github.com" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-securitytrails-api-key",
+ "hostname": "github.com"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds value by specifying the exact return data (registrar, dates, contacts). No contradictions.
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?
Description is concise: one sentence stating purpose and output, plus a clear example. No redundant or unnecessary content.
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?
With full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and a clear description, the tool definition is complete for safe and effective use. The example aids understanding.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds an example but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves WHOIS data for a hostname, specifying the exact output fields (registrar, dates, contacts). Distinguishes from sibling tools like securitytrails_dns_history and securitytrails_subdomains by its unique resource.
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?
Provides an example call but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus related sibling tools (e.g., securitytrails_domain). Usage context is implied but not directly stated.
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.