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 mentions the tool uses 'Sherlock' (implying an external service), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, error handling, or what 'accounts across platforms' entails (e.g., social media, forums). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter semantics. There's no wasted text, and it's structured for quick comprehension.

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), no annotations, and low complexity (one parameter), the description is minimally complete. It covers purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter: 'username: Username to search' clarifies it's a search target. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, special characters), so it's not a full 5.

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 accounts across platforms for a username using Sherlock.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('accounts'), and method ('using Sherlock'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on email, company, or domain searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar username search tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools like osint_person_enrich or osint_query that might overlap in functionality. The agent must 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.