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 action ('Get WHOIS registration data') but doesn't add any context about rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a minimal parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter basics, though it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 includes a brief parameter section: 'domain: Domain to look up,' which adds basic meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., TLD requirements) or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage. With 1 parameter and some added semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 WHOIS registration data for a domain.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('WHOIS registration data'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like osint_dns_lookup or osint_shodan_domain), which could provide similar domain-related information but for different purposes.

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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., osint_dns_lookup, osint_shodan_domain) that might overlap in domain-related queries, the agent is left without clear direction on tool selection.

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