OSINT MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source ('Have I Been Pwned') but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, privacy implications, or response format. For a tool querying external breach data, this omission leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick comprehension. No extraneous details are included.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (external API call), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and parameter meaning but misses behavioral details like rate limits or error handling. The output schema likely handles return values, so completeness is borderline acceptable but not robust.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'Email to check' clarifies that the 'email' input should be an email address to query. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates by providing essential semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., valid email syntax).

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if email has been in data breaches (Have I Been Pwned).' It specifies the verb ('Check'), resource ('email'), and data source ('Have I Been Pwned'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osint_email_verify' or 'osint_email_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on email (e.g., 'osint_email_verify', 'osint_email_search'), there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.