search_darkwebSearch the dark web via Ahmia.fi's .onion index to retrieve metadata-only results. Find relevant dark web content by querying the index directly.
Search the dark web via Ahmia.fi (.onion index). Metadata only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| 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 mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the exact backend (Ahmia.fi) and clarifying that only metadata is returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, then adds the important metadata-only limitation, earning its place with zero redundancy.
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 search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is searched, where it is searched, and the nature of the results; no critical calling context is missing.
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%, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'max_results' at all. The meanings must be inferred from parameter names and the schema default, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('dark web via Ahmia.fi (.onion index)'), and adds a precise scope qualifier ('Metadata only'). This clearly differentiates it from content-scraping or deep-web search tools and from the other OSINT sibling lookups.
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?
Gives a clear use case: searching the dark web through a named index. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to select it among the OSINT siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.