Check if a profile policy allows or blocks a domain and why, without changing any settings.
Check what the profile policy would do for a domain right now: allowed, blocked, and why. Does not change anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to test, e.g. example.com | |
| profile_id | Yes | Profile ID (use list_profiles to discover IDs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does address the most important trait by explicitly stating 'Does not change anything' (side-effect-free), which an agent needs for a policy tool. But it omits permission requirements, rate limits, and whether the evaluation reflects cached vs live rule state.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is evaluated and what comes back, the second kills the main ambiguity (mutating vs non-mutating). 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?
For a two-required-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly complete: it conveys purpose, dry-run semantics, and the shape of the answer. It would be stronger with a note on what determines the verdict (profile rules/priorities) or when the simulation is invalid.
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 both parameters (domain, profile_id) are documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_profiles for discovery. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb (check/simulate), the exact resource (profile policy for a given domain), and even previews the result shape (allowed, blocked, why). It is clearly a dry-run evaluation rather than a listing or mutation tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_rules or get_logs without opening schemas.
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 'right now' phrasing implies this is a real-time, point-in-time evaluation, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. inspecting rules directly) or what prerequisites exist, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.