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 ('Detect') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, privacy implications, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely queries external services, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a parameter section. There's no wasted text. However, the structure could be improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly or adding brief usage notes.

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), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and deeper parameter semantics. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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 the parameter 'email' with a brief explanation ('Email to check'), which provides basic semantics. However, it doesn't detail format requirements, validation rules, or examples. With only one parameter, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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: 'Detect which services an email is registered with using Holehe.' It specifies the verb ('Detect'), resource ('services an email is registered with'), and method ('using Holehe'). 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like osint_email_verify or osint_email_search, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only context is the parameter description, which is insufficient for usage decisions.

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