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 states the action ('Perform DNS lookups') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as users need to know if it's read-only, has constraints, or what the output entails beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args' section could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks additional context that might be useful.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic action and parameter, but with no annotations and missing usage guidelines, it falls short. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling are omitted.

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 semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'domain' is the 'Domain to look up', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The baseline is 3 since the schema handles the structure, but the description doesn't add format details or examples.

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: 'Perform DNS lookups - A, MX, NS, TXT records.' This specifies the verb ('Perform DNS lookups') and resource (DNS records), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osint_shodan_domain' or 'osint_whois', which may also involve domain-related queries.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where DNS lookups are appropriate, such as for security analysis or network troubleshooting. Without this, users might struggle to choose between this and similar tools like 'osint_shodan_domain' or 'osint_whois'.

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