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. It states 'Get LinkedIn company data' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or what specific data fields are returned. For an OSINT tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more polished in presentation.

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), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context but is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data sources, limitations, or error handling, which are important for OSINT tools. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but more context is needed for full 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?

The description adds parameter semantics by explaining that 'linkedin_url' is a 'Company LinkedIn URL' and 'domain' is a 'Company domain (alternative)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's technical definitions. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this explanation is minimal. It doesn't clarify format requirements (e.g., URL structure), mutual exclusivity, or which parameter takes precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema has no descriptions.

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 'Get LinkedIn company data' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('LinkedIn company data'). It distinguishes from siblings like osint_linkedin_profile (for individuals) and osint_company_enrich (broader company enrichment), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage through the parameter documentation ('Args: linkedin_url: Company LinkedIn URL, domain: Company domain (alternative)'), suggesting this tool can be used with either identifier. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like osint_company_enrich or osint_company_research, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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