OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'AI-powered' and 'using Perplexity' which suggests some intelligence/processing, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, privacy implications, or what kind of OSINT results to expect. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter clarification. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer differentiation from siblings.

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), 1 parameter with description coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a general OSINT query tool among many specialized alternatives, it should provide more context about its role in the ecosystem. The existence of output schema helps, but the description lacks completeness about when and why to use this versus other tools.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that 'prompt' should be a 'Research question or query'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the expected input format and purpose. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, and this meets that standard.

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 states the tool performs 'AI-powered OSINT query using Perplexity', which indicates a general-purpose intelligence gathering function. However, it's vague about what specific OSINT activities it performs compared to its many specialized siblings (like email search, DNS lookup, breach checks). It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from these alternatives.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the 20+ specialized OSINT siblings. The description doesn't indicate whether this is a general-purpose fallback, a starting point, or when specific tools like osint_email_search or osint_dns_lookup would be more appropriate. There's no context about use cases or exclusions.

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