OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is retrieved (ports, services, vulnerabilities) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external API calls.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

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), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error cases, which the output schema alone doesn't address.

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%, but the description compensates by specifying the 'ip' parameter as 'IP address to look up', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6) or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Get Shodan data') and resource ('for an IP'), specifying it retrieves ports, services, and vulnerabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osint_shodan_domain' by focusing on IP addresses, but could be more explicit about the distinction from other host-related tools like 'osint_censys_host'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for IP lookups but doesn't mention when to choose it over similar tools like 'osint_censys_host' or 'osint_dns_lookup', 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.