Retrieve content and security categorization for any domain to assess its risk and filtering status. Query the Cisco Umbrella API for category labels and threat ratings.
Get the content/security categorization for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get,' implying a read operation. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or what the categorization data includes, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 one concise sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loaded and free of filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It leaves important details unaddressed, such as the domain format, the structure of the returned categorization, and any tool-specific limitations. This is barely adequate for an agent to call the tool confidently.
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?
The input schema has one required string parameter 'domain' with zero description coverage, but the tool description does not explain the expected format (e.g., bare domain, URL, with or without scheme). The description merely repeats the word 'domain' without adding any semantic value, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 action 'Get' and the targeted resource: 'content/security categorization for a domain.' It provides a specific purpose that is distinct from sibling tools like domain_volume or resource records, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with similarly named tools such as umbrella_domain_risk_score or umbrella_domain_security_score, leaving some differentiation to inference.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain_risk_score or domain_security_score. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no documented basis for selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.