FOFA Quake Hunter MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It specifies authentication requirements (QUAKE_KEY environment variable), pagination behavior (scroll API with pagination_id expiring in 5 minutes), query syntax rules, field naming conventions, and user tier limitations for the 'include' parameter. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality, but becomes somewhat dense with multiple examples, syntax rules, and field naming conventions in a single paragraph. While all information is valuable, the structure could be improved with better organization or bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context about authentication, query syntax, pagination behavior, field naming rules, and user tier limitations. The main gap is lack of information about return format or result structure, which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds some value by emphasizing the importance of the 'include' parameter and providing field naming examples, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches the 'Quake 360 cyberspace mapping platform using scroll API (supports deep pagination)', which is a specific verb (search) and resource (Quake 360 platform). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fofa_search and hunter_search by explicitly naming the platform and API method.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (searching Quake 360 platform with scroll API for deep pagination) and mentions the QUAKE_KEY environment variable requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives to sibling tools, though the platform specificity implies differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.