OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Search' and a 'limit' parameter, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., format, pagination). This is insufficient for a tool with potential complexity in OSINT contexts.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose sentence followed by bullet-point-like 'Args' with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors). The output schema may cover return values, but for an OSINT search tool, more guidance on usage and limitations would improve completeness.

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. It adds meaningful semantics: 'query' is explained as 'Censys query language search,' and 'limit' as 'Max results (up to 100).' This clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic types, though it could detail query syntax or default behavior more.

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: 'Search Censys for hosts matching a query (e.g., certificates, services).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Censys'), and scope ('hosts'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'osint_censys_host' or 'osint_query' beyond the Censys focus.

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. It mentions 'Censys' and examples like 'certificates, services,' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings such as 'osint_censys_host' or 'osint_shodan_host' for similar OSINT tasks.

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