List permitted domains ranked by DNS query count, optionally querying the long-term database using from_ts and until_ts timestamps.
Top allowed domains by query count. from_ts/until_ts switch to the long-term database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| from_ts | No | ||
| until_ts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / until_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: supplying from_ts/until_ts switches the query to the long-term database. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, result size, ordering, or pagination.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter hint. Every clause earns its place, though the brevity borders on under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage, zero parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description leaves too much for an agent to infer about a 3-parameter 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: from_ts/until_ts get meaningful semantics (long-term DB switch), but count is left unexplained and the time-unit/format is not stated.
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 resource (permitted/allowed domains) and metric (query count), which cleanly separates it from get_top_blocked. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling or clarify scope beyond the title-like phrasing.
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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named, even though get_top_blocked and get_top_clients are obvious siblings an agent must choose between. The only usage hint is the implicit condition on from_ts/until_ts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.