OSINT MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (find URLs) without describing how it works, success rates, rate limits, authentication needs, privacy implications, or what happens when multiple matches are found. For an OSINT tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It's front-loaded with the main function. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. No wasted words, though slightly terse for a tool with no annotations.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic function and parameter purposes, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, limitations, or sibling differentiation. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. However, for an OSINT tool with privacy implications, more context would be beneficial.

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 meaning by explaining that 'name' should be a 'Full name' and 'company' is for 'disambiguation', which clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples, search strategies, or handling of null company values, leaving gaps for a tool with 2 parameters.

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: 'Find someone's LinkedIn profile URL' - a specific verb (find) and resource (LinkedIn profile URL). It distinguishes from siblings like osint_linkedin_company and osint_linkedin_profile by focusing on URL retrieval rather than company data or profile enrichment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with osint_person_enrich or osint_person_research which might overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like osint_person_enrich, osint_email_finder, or osint_username_search. It also doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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