Look up domain threat intelligence via AlienVault OTX to retrieve pulse, whois, and reputation data for security investigations.
Look up threat intelligence for a domain via AlienVault OTX. Returns pulse info, whois, reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to look up (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned data categories ('pulse info, whois, reputation'), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It still omits rate limits or error behavior, but adds meaningful value beyond structured fields.
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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second efficiently summarizes the return contents. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by naming return categories, though it could better distinguish itself from sibling indicator tools like otx_ip or otx_search_pulses.
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% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('threat intelligence for a domain'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like otx_ip, otx_hash, or otx_search_pulses, but the domain resource is inherently distinct.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as otx_search_pulses or otx_ip, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the resource, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.