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 tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool accessing an external API like Shodan, 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly polished.

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 moderate complexity (external API call), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but misses behavioral context (e.g., API constraints) and usage differentiation from siblings. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but other gaps remain.

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 for the single parameter 'domain' by stating 'Domain to look up,' which clarifies its purpose. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't provide format details (e.g., TLD requirements) or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of enrichment keeps it at an adequate level.

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: 'Get Shodan DNS data - subdomains and DNS records.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Shodan DNS data') with concrete examples ('subdomains and DNS records'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osint_dns_lookup' or 'osint_shodan_host', which would be needed for 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_dns_lookup' (general DNS) or 'osint_shodan_host' (Shodan host data), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., Shodan API access) or use cases (e.g., security reconnaissance). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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