OSINT MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., bgp_asn vs bgp_ip), but some overlap exists: multiple subdomain enumeration tools (crtsh_search, st_subdomains, vt_subdomains, hacker_target_hostsearch) and several IP information sources (shodan_host, censys_host_details, geoip_lookup, vt_ip). Descriptions help differentiate them by source and output details.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent pattern: source prefix (e.g., shodan_, vt_, whois_) followed by a noun or verb_noun (e.g., shodan_host, whois_domain, dns_lookup). The 'osint_' tools are exceptions but fit the overall theme. No mixing of case or naming styles.
Tool Count4/5
37 tools is high but justified for an OSINT server integrating numerous external APIs (BGP, Censys, Shodan, VirusTotal, etc.). Each tool provides unique data, and the count reflects the breadth of coverage rather than redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a wide range of network/domain OSINT: DNS, WHOIS, certificates, IP geolocation, ASN, email security, web archives, and multiple threat intelligence sources. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse WHOIS or social media scanning), but the core domain is well-covered.
Average 3.6/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads CT logs and returns unique subdomains, but omits critical behaviors: rate limits, pagination, handling of wildcard domains, or whether it queries the crt.sh API directly. The description does not disclose if expired certificates are excluded by default or other notable traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but could be improved with bullet points or more structured detail about return fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and two parameters, the description provides a basic understanding of return values (subdomains + certificate details) but lacks detail on output structure, pagination, or usage context like 'returns JSON array'. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have adequate descriptions. The description adds context about return types (subdomains, SANs) but does not further clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as searching Certificate Transparency logs via crt.sh and specifies the return data (subdomains, certificate details). It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like st_subdomains or censys_certificates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., st_dns_history for historical DNS, shodan_dns_resolve for IP resolution), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts like 'use for passive reconnaissance'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the external service and rate limit but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. Essential information is front-loaded and every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., bgp_asn), the description lacks sufficient context about return values, error conditions, or when to prefer this over alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'IP address or ASN'—the free tier note is about usage limits, not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up ASN information for an IP or ASN via HackerTarget, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the service and mentioning the free tier limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like bgp_asn or hackertarget_hostsearch. The rate limit hint is implicit usage constraint but lacks conditional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the API key requirement, omitting details like rate limits, error handling, read-only nature, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key requirement. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and a prerequisite. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the expected output format (e.g., a mapping of hostnames to IPs) to fully inform the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'hostnames' parameter fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves hostnames to IPs using Shodan's DNS resolver. It is straightforward and distinguishes itself from generic DNS tools by specifying the Shodan resolver, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup or other DNS resolvers. The description only states the action and prerequisite, leaving the agent without context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the API key dependency but fails to mention read-only nature, rate limits, or output characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain return values or pagination. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'enumerate' and resource 'subdomains for a domain via VirusTotal', clearly stating the tool's function. Among sibling tools like st_subdomains and vt_domain, this distinguishes itself by targeting VirusTotal subdomain enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., st_subdomains, crtsh_search). It only states the requirement for a VT API key, without explaining context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the lookup involves external API calls, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential delays. The description only lists return fields without performance or side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and output. However, it could be improved by adding structured sections for usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the key return fields, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not address error conditions, input validation (e.g., IPv4/IPv6), or any behavioral caveats, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single 'ip' parameter with a description of 'IP address to look up', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs RDAP/WHOIS lookup for an IP address and lists specific return data (network name, CIDR range, country, responsible entities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whois_domain (domain WHOIS) and geoip_lookup (location only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shodan_host or vt_ip. The purpose is clear, but no when-not or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous information; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema; description covers basic function and return content. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency leave some gaps for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'asn', with a clear example. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it looks up ASN details and announced prefixes via BGPView, specifying the verb 'look up' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like bgp_ip and bgp_prefix by focusing on ASN-level data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hackertarget_aslookup or other ASN tools). The description only states what it does, lacking explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behaviors such as recursion, timeouts, or limitations (e.g., only public domains). The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a list, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys supported types.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the basics but lacks context about return values (no output schema) and when to use this tool versus siblings. It is adequate for a simple lookup but could benefit from specifying what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds a list of supported record types, which corresponds to the 'type' enum. However, it does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'DNS records for a domain', and lists the supported record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, CNAME, SRV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bgp_asn or geoip_lookup, which deal with different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_reverse or dns_email_security. There is no explicit context for when to use or not use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It describes the outputs (namespace type, federation brand, auth endpoints) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, error handling, or whether it performs network calls. The agent is left uninformed about potential risks or preconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a two-sentence structure that front-loads the purpose and then specifies the outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core information needed to invoke it. However, it lacks contextual depth such as usage guidance relative to siblings, error conditions, or behavioral details, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'domain' with a description, and the tool's description does not add additional meaning beyond 'Domain to check user realm for', which is nearly identical to the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect authentication type for a domain's Microsoft 365 tenant.' It specifies the verb (detect) and the resource (authentication type of a domain's tenant). Additionally, it lists the specific outputs (namespace type, federation brand, auth endpoints), making it distinct from sibling tools like m365_tenant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., m365_tenant). It lacks explicit context or conditions for usage, nor does it mention when not to use it. The only implied usage is from the purpose itself, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only discovery operation, but does not disclose potential rate limits, error behavior for invalid domains, or whether authentication is needed. The mention of 'Discover' is adequate for a safety profile, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Discover'), object ('tenant information'), and output. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lack of output schema, the description lists three key return values (tenant ID, region, OpenID endpoints). However, it does not mention error handling or domain validity requirements, which would be helpful for a single-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'domain' parameter already described. The description adds 'Domain to check for M365 tenant', which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool discovers Microsoft 365 tenant information for a domain, specifying return values: tenant ID, region, and OpenID configuration endpoints. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like m365_userrealm, which may serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m365_userrealm. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'submit ... and get analysis results', lacking details on synchronous/asynchronous behavior, rate limits, or whether it triggers a new scan. More behavioral context needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences with no extraneous content. Front-loaded with action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and no output schema, description adequately covers input, action, and output expectations. Could mention if scanning is immediate or queued, but overall sufficient for simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and description adds minimal value beyond schema's 'URL to scan'. No parameter-level details like format or validation beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'submit', resource 'URL', and purpose 'scanning and get analysis results' with expected output categories. Differentiates from sibling tools (vt_domain, vt_ip) which focus on other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only mentions requirement of VT_API_KEY. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vt_domain or vt_ip, and no scenario-specific instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'probes' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. The tool's behavior is only vaguely described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the main action, the second lists examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains input and discovery types. However, it does not mention output format, error handling, or typical use cases, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter described as 'Domain to probe'. The description adds context about what the tool does with the domain but does not add extra semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Discover SRV records and common service CNAMEs for a domain.' It lists specific protocols and CNAME patterns, distinguishing it from siblings like dns_lookup or dns_email_security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for service discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No 'when-to-use' guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the key behavior of resolving a random subdomain but does not explain what constitutes a wildcard detection, error handling (e.g., domain not found), or whether the tool is read-only. Since no annotations exist, more detailed behavioral disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about return format (e.g., true/false) and potential false positives or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'domain' parameter fully (100% coverage), so the description adds only slight context about the method (random subdomain). The baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks for wildcard DNS on a domain by resolving a random subdomain. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_reverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when checking for wildcard DNS but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as dns_lookup. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the API key requirement, omitting details like rate limits, pagination behavior, and whether the operation is read-only. Users are left uninformed about potential side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with an example. Every word earns its place, and critical information (requires API key) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and authentication but lacks detail on return format, pagination, and facet usage. It is adequate for simple use but not comprehensive for complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by providing a concrete query example for the 'query' parameter. However, it adds no additional context for 'page' or 'facets' beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches Shodan for hosts matching a query, with an explicit example. This verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_host (specific host details) and shodan_exploits (exploit search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a query example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the required API key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the operation and return types without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality. It specifies the return types (prefixes, ASNs, RIR allocation), making it useful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ip', with a description that is clear but adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name. The description does not provide additional context like format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it looks up BGP routing information for an IP address and returns prefixes, ASNs, and RIR allocation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bgp_asn (ASN lookup) and bgp_prefix (prefix lookup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for IP address BGP lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bgp_asn or bgp_prefix. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for an API key and that it retrieves contacts, but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. This adds some context but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and additional contact details, followed by a brief requirement. No filler or redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, source, and authorization requirement. It lacks details on output structure or edge cases, but is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'domain' parameter described. The description adds that the lookup is 'enhanced' and includes contacts, which provides extra context about the return value but does not elaborate on parameter format or validation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an 'Enhanced WHOIS lookup via SecurityTrails' and specifies it includes 'registrant/admin/technical contacts', which distinguishes it from sibling WHOIS tools like 'whois_domain'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite 'Requires ST_API_KEY' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'whois_domain' or other lookup tools present in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context (returns timestamps, status codes, links, first/last seen dates) but does not mention safety, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about the return format. Could be slightly more complete by noting it's a query-only operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters (url, limit) at 100% coverage. The description adds value by describing the output fields but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Wayback Machine snapshot history'), specifies the input (URL), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wayback_urls' by focusing on snapshot history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'wayback_urls'). No explicit conditions or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the operation (RDAP/WHOIS lookup) and output fields, indicating a read-only action. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, failover behavior, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and return data without unnecessary words or repetition. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return values sufficiently. It lacks error handling or special cases but is largely complete for a basic lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'domain' parameter well-described as 'Domain name to look up'. The description adds only context ('RDAP/WHOIS lookup for a domain') beyond the schema, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs an RDAP/WHOIS lookup for a domain and lists the returned data (registrar, dates, nameservers, contact entities). This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like whois_ip (IP lookup) and others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vt_domain, osint_domain_recon, or st_whois. It lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks common DKIM selectors and provides risk assessment/recommendations, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens if records are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, concise sentences. Front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a specific detail about DKIM selectors. No redundant or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the analysis scope but does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of risk assessment or recommendations), which an agent might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both domain and dkim_selectors. The description adds concrete examples of default DKIM selectors (google, selector1, etc.), providing extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes email security posture including SPF, DMARC, DKIM records with risk assessment and recommendations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_spf_chain by focusing on comprehensive email security analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for email security analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_spf_chain or other DNS tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the API key requirement but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are read-only. The description is minimal beyond the requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that includes the verb, resource, and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so complexity is low. The description adequately states the primary action and a requirement, but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or that the database contains public exploits. It is sufficient but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and type). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Shodan's exploit database', and the result 'public exploits matching a query'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like shodan_search which searches hosts, and shodan_host which retrieves host details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the requirement for SHODAN_API_KEY, which is a necessary usage condition. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shodan_search for general device searches), nor does it mention 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches historical records and shows first/last seen dates, values, and organizations, indicating a read operation. However, it omits details on pagination, rate limits, and potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action and data source. No extraneous words; every clause adds value (purpose, data source, key output fields, prerequisite).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and basic output but lacks details on output format, limits, and error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The tool description adds context about output fields ('first/last seen dates, values, organizations'), which indirectly clarifies parameter use but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Get historical DNS records for a domain via SecurityTrails', clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup (current records) by focusing on historical data and mentioning SecurityTrails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for historical DNS analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup or other SecurityTrails tools. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose any other behavioral traits. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 17 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with fully documented parameters and an explicitly stated output, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention output format or additional details, but it suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context but no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up details for a specific IP prefix/CIDR and lists the returned data (ASNs, name, country, RIR). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bgp_asn (ASN lookup) and bgp_ip (IP lookup) by focusing on prefix/CIDR.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the context of sibling tools implies differentiation, the description itself lacks such guidance, making it average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates that the tool performs a search (read operation), lists the returned fields, and specifies authentication requirements. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are present; the description sufficiently discloses the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output, and the second adds the authentication prerequisite. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values and authentication. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention pagination limits beyond default.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear meaning for both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Search Censys certificate database') and explicitly lists the returned data fields (fingerprints, subjects, issuers, validity, SANs). It is specific about the resource (Censys certificate database) and distinguishes from sibling tools like crtsh_search by naming the provider and data elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the requirement for CENSYS_API_ID and CENSYS_API_SECRET, which is helpful, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative certificate search tools in the sibling list (e.g., crtsh_search). There is no when-not-to-use or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It states what it returns but omits details like behavior on invalid IP or missing records, rate limits, or data source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the core functionality. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs reverse DNS (PTR) lookup for an IP address and returns hostnames. Distinct from forward lookup, geoip, or domain tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for reverse DNS lookups but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like dns_lookup or whois_ip. No mention of when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses external service (ip-api.com) and no API key needed, but lacks details on rate limits, response format, or failure handling. No annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple batch tool with one parameter, covering purpose, source, authentication, and limit. No output schema needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100% and description repeats the schema's 'IP addresses to geolocate (max 100)', adding no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'batch geolocate' and resource 'IP addresses' with constraint 'up to 100'. Distinguishes from sibling geoip_lookup via batch nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for multiple IPs via 'Batch', but no explicit guidance on when to use vs single IP tool (geoip_lookup) or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the external dependency and free usage, but omits details like rate limits, error handling, data privacy, or whether it logs queries. It states what data is returned but not the response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, backend, and output types. Could add basic error or rate limit context, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'ip' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about output but does not enhance the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it geolocates an IP and lists specific data points (country, city, ISP, ASN, proxy/hosting/mobile detection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geoip_batch that process multiple IPs, and from other network tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions the free external service with no API key, implying ease of use. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when you need batch lookups) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rate limit ('Free tier: 50 queries/day'), which is helpful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, or describe error handling or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that clearly states the purpose upfront, followed by a necessary constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but could mention the output format (list of domains) and any API nuances. Still, it is adequate for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'ip' with a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reverse IP lookup via HackerTarget — find all domains hosted on an IP.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'reverseip' distinguishes it from siblings like dns_lookup or whois_domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and context, but no guidance on when not to use it or specific scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It mentions requiring an API key but not how to provide it (e.g., environment variable). It also does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output types. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the key output fields. While it could mention response format or error conditions, it is largely sufficient for an API lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage ('IP address to look up'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches Shodan host details for an IP, listing specific data types (open ports, services, banners, vulns, OS, ASN, geolocation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_dns_resolve or shodan_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes the prerequisite 'Requires SHODAN_API_KEY,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the clear listing of output fields implies its use case for host reconnaissance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the external data source (SecurityTrails) and returned format (FQDNs), but omits details like rate limits, authentication method, or whether it is a read-only operation. Basic transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences that convey purpose, return type, and requirement. No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what, returns, and requirement. However, given the context of many sibling tools, adding a brief note on data source uniqueness would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with description for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enumerates subdomains for a domain via SecurityTrails and returns FQDNs. The verb 'enumerate' and resource 'subdomains for a domain' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like vt_subdomains or dns_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires ST_API_KEY' as a prerequisite, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crtsh_search, vt_subdomains). Given 35+ sibling tools, more explicit selection criteria would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the required VT_API_KEY, which is important, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with key outputs plus a requirement note. Every word adds value; no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, description lists expected outputs and authentication. Lacks return format or error details, but still adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for the single domain parameter, and its description already clarifies 'Domain to analyze'. Description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'VirusTotal domain analysis' and lists specific outputs (reputation score, detection stats, categories, etc.). Differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on domain analysis on VirusTotal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The listed outputs imply usage for domain reputation and DNS records, but alternatives are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data types and utility, but omits details on rate limits, pagination, or what happens with large result sets. The schema has a limit parameter default of 1000, which is not mentioned in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states the core action and resource, second adds value and use cases. No wasted words – every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters (all documented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return types, and typical use cases. It could more explicitly describe the default limit behavior, but overall is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context about the returned data (timestamps, status codes, MIME types), which indirectly aids understanding of the filter parameter, but does not add specific parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches the Wayback Machine for archived URLs of a domain, specifies the returned data (timestamps, status codes, MIME types), and distinguishes it from siblings like wayback_snapshots by focusing on URL discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases ('finding old endpoints, hidden paths, and removed content') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like wayback_snapshots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description adds rate limit information. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like potential failure modes, authentication needs, or output format, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose. Perfectly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (rate limit). Lacks mention of output details, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (domain parameter described in schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool finds subdomains and IPs for a domain via HackerTarget, with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from many DNS-related sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions the free tier limit of 50 queries/day, providing a usage constraint. Does not compare with alternatives, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides good transparency: mentions combination of free sources, no API keys required, and lists the types of data. Does not disclose rate limits or edge cases, but adequate for a simple recon tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. Zero wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers the tool's composite nature and free-source constraint. For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete. Could mention output format or behavior upon failure, but not critical for an initial recon tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Domain to perform recon on', so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Quick domain reconnaissance combining free sources.' It lists specific data types (DNS, WHOIS, crt.sh, HackerTarget, email security) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for initial broad recon, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives despite many sibling tools offering more targeted lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses API key requirement and lists returned data types. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks mention of potential rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects beyond read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loads the tool's output and ends with a necessary prerequisite. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple schema (1 param, no output schema), description adequately explains what the tool returns. Could mention input format constraints (e.g., IPv4/IPv6), but overall complete for a straightforward IP analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying the analysis includes reputation, detection stats, country, ASN, and network, going beyond the schema's 'IP address to analyze'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool analyzes an IP address, listing specific data types (reputation, detection stats, country, ASN, network). Distinguishes from siblings like vt_domain and vt_url by focusing on IP.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions requirement for VT_API_KEY, which is a key usage condition. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other IP-analysis tools (e.g., geoip_lookup, shodan_host) 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation and lists returned data types, but lacks details on rate limits, error behavior (e.g., unknown IP), or data volume. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and its requirements. It is complete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'ip' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds the nuance of 'single IP' and lists what is returned, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving detailed Censys host information for a single IP. It lists specific data categories (services, certificates, OS, location, ASN), distinguishing it from sibling tools like shodan_host or bgp_ip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the requirement for API credentials (CENSYS_API_ID + CENSYS_API_SECRET), providing necessary context. However, it does not provide exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the context of sibling names allows inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description effectively discloses recursive behavior, output contents, and compliance checking. However, it does not mention potential limitations like DNS rate limits or timeouts, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. Every clause adds value: 'Recursively resolve', 'SPF include chain', and the list of outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (SPF chain resolution with recursion and service detection) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what results to expect, leaving little ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds context about recursion and max_depth but does not significantly augment the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: recursively resolve SPF include chains. It specifies the outputs: included domains, IP ranges, detected services, and RFC compliance, which differentiates from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_email_security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SPF chain analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like dns_lookup or dns_email_security. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses return fields and authentication requirement, but omits details like rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. Still informative for a simple search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by expected outputs and prerequisites. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low parameter count, absence of output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. Covers purpose, return fields, and authentication. Slight lack of behavioral details but adequate for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond schema descriptions for query and per_page. The API key requirement is mentioned but not a parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'hosts', lists returned fields (IPs, services, ports, location, ASN). Differentiates from siblings like censys_certificates and censys_host_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions required API keys as prerequisite, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. Context is implied by specifying Censys search host functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists sources with availability, API key requirements, and tool counts, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. Complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds value by detailing the output fields (availability, API key reqs, tool counts) beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'OSINT data sources', and specifies what information is returned (availability, API key requirements, tool counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools that query specific sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this to check which sources are configured,' providing clear context. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the intent is clear for a listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![osint-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krisparenthetic284/osint-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krisparenthetic284/osint-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![osint-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krisparenthetic284/osint-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Krisparenthetic284/osint-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Krisparenthetic284/osint-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server