assetfinder_discoveryDiscover in-scope subdomains for a target domain by running the enabled Assetfinder binary and retaining only authorized scope results.
Run the explicitly enabled Assetfinder binary and retain only in-scope subdomains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| subdomains | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that an external binary must be 'explicitly enabled' and that results are scope-filtered, but says nothing about failure mode when the binary is absent or about rate/volume behavior for an open-world scan.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity tips toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need no repeating. However, the missing usage routing against numerous subdomain-discovery siblings and the unexplained domain parameter leave real gaps for an agent choosing between 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the single 'domain' parameter — whether it is the apex, a wildcard base, or which scope it maps to. With 0% coverage the description should compensate but instead adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's own name.
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?
States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Assetfinder binary') and clarifies output ('retain only in-scope subdomains'). Naming the specific binary distinguishes it from asset-based siblings, though it never explicitly frames this as subdomain discovery or contrasts it with subfinder_discovery/amass_passive_discovery.
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 phrase 'explicitly enabled' hints at a precondition, but there is no guidance on when to choose Assetfinder over the many sibling subdomain tools (subfinder_discovery, amass_passive_discovery, subdomain_enumeration). No when/when-not or alternative routing is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.