technology_finderDiscover the technologies used by a website. Returns information about the tech stack including CMS, frameworks, analytics, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to analyze for technologies (e.g., 'example.com') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read and open-world nature is covered. The description adds that results include tech-stack categories, but doesn't discuss potential gaps, accuracy limits, or reliance on publicly observable data. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral context.
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 a single focused sentence that leads with the core verb and object, then gives typical return categories. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description explains the return content sufficiently; no critical call-time information is missing.
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%, so the domain parameter is already well documented. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Discover the technologies used by a website.' It also clarifies scope by listing CMS, frameworks, analytics, and more. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the siblings obviously compete with this function.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to know what technologies a website runs on. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but there are no obvious sibling tools that provide the same capability.
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.