OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is functional but lacks important operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter. The structure is front-loaded with the main functionality, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted language.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, as an OSINT tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. The description covers the basics but leaves important operational context unspecified.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains that 'ip' is an 'IP address to look up,' which provides basic context, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The baseline for a single parameter with low schema coverage would be higher if more detail were provided.

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: 'Get Censys data for an IP address' with specific resources listed (services, ports, certificates, ASN). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'osint_censys_search' by focusing on host/IP lookup rather than general search, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for IP address lookups, it doesn't mention when to choose this over similar tools like 'osint_shodan_host' or 'osint_censys_search', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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