domain_email_searchScrape a domain's public pages to uncover exposed email addresses. Use it to retrieve email contacts for open-source intelligence.
Heuristically scrape a domain's public pages for exposed emails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by saying the operation is heuristic scraping, which signals best-effort results sourced from live public pages rather than a deterministic database lookup.
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 focused, front-loaded sentence: action, target, and result. It contains no filler, no repetition of annotations, and no unnecessary detail.
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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides the core behavioral context needed to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance about when to select it versus similar email-enumeration siblings.
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 schema gives no property description for 'domain', and the description does not provide format details, examples, or protocol guidance. However, the description clearly contextualizes the parameter as an internet domain whose public pages are scraped, which is sufficient given the single self-explanatory parameter.
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 the specific verb 'scrape' with a clear resource, 'a domain's public pages', and a clear result, 'exposed emails'. It uniquely identifies the tool among OSINT siblings by emphasizing heuristic public-page scraping rather than DNS, WHOIS, or breach-check behavior.
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 implies the tool should be used when an agent wants emails exposed on a domain's public pages, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like email_permutations or check_email_breaches. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.