Get threat intelligence details for multiple domains at once (GET bulk). Returns per-domain risk and category data.
Get threat intelligence details for multiple domains at once (GET bulk). Returns per-domain risk and category data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | required,List of domain names to look up | |
| account_id | Yes | required,The ID of the Cloudflare account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does at least signal read-only behavior via 'GET bulk' and describes the return content (risk and category per domain). It omits practical behavior such as any maximum number of domains per call, how invalid or missing domains are handled, and rate/pagination characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope, and the return shape is stated up front. Minor redundancy in '(GET bulk)'. Nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the read nature and rough return content, which is enough to attempt a call. But for a bulk tool it leaves key operational questions unanswered (batch size limits, partial-failure behavior) and offers no routing versus the sibling bulk tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domains, account_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning — e.g. any cap on list size or accepted domain format — so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource+scope: it fetches threat intel for a batch of domains and names the returned data (per-domain risk and category). However, it fails to differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling get_domain_intel_bulk, and the '(GET bulk)' parenthetical doesn't resolve that ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite obvious candidates in the sibling list (get_domain_intel for single lookups, get_domain_intel_bulk for what appears to be the same batch operation). The agent is left to guess which bulk tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.