Get threat intelligence for a URL. Returns risk and category information for the URL.
Get threat intelligence for a URL. Returns risk and category information for the URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | required,The URL 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content ('risk and category information'), which is useful since there is no output schema, and 'Get' implies a read-only lookup. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or whether results are cached.
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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and contain no filler. The trailing 'for the URL' is mildly redundant with the first sentence, keeping it just shy of a 5.
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 output schema, the description should carry return-value detail, and it names only two fields ('risk and category') without describing their shape or scoring scale. Combined with the absence of any usage context against same-family intel tools, the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (url, account_id) are already documented in the schema with required flags. The description adds no formatting, syntax, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get threat intelligence for a URL', which is unambiguous about what the tool retrieves. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings get_domain_intel, get_ip_intel, and get_asn_intel, leaving the agent to infer that this one applies to full URLs.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative intel tools. Given siblings like get_domain_intel and get_ip_intel, an agent could easily route a domain lookup here or vice versa, and the description offers nothing to prevent that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.