get_domain_reportRetrieve existing threat intelligence for a DNS domain without resolving or visiting it.
Look up existing intelligence for a DNS domain name, without resolving or visiting it.
Supply a domain without a scheme, path or port. VTAI normalizes Unicode domain names and applies its query quota. The result does not cover every URL on the domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no DNS resolution or visiting occurs, Unicode names are normalized, a query quota applies, and the result is not URL-exhaustive.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then input constraints, then scope caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the passive nature, input format, normalization, quota, and result scope. Nothing essential is missing for selecting or invoking the 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for the single 'domain' parameter by specifying what to omit (scheme, path, port), that Unicode is normalized, and that a quota applies. This is enough for an agent to construct a valid call.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up existing intelligence for a DNS domain name'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('without resolving or visiting it') and is clearly distinct from sibling file/URL/IP report tools.
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?
It states the intended use case (existing domain intelligence) and gives concrete input constraints: 'Supply a domain without a scheme, path or port'. It warns that 'The result does not cover every URL on the domain', but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_url_report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.