domain_variation_generatorGenerate a bounded list of typo-oriented domain variations for one authorized domain without resolving or contacting candidates.
Generate a bounded typo-oriented candidate list for one authorized domain without resolving or contacting any candidate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| maximum | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| variants | 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the output is a bounded candidate list and no DNS resolution or network contact occurs, which prevents an agent from expecting live-verified results.
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 no filler; the core action and its two key constraints (authorized scope, no resolution) come before any elaboration.
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, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description addresses purpose and the critical non-contact behavior, leaving only parameter semantics (notably 'maximum') as a gap for an otherwise simple two-parameter tool.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. 'Bounded' faintly gestures at the 'maximum' parameter but gives no range, default, or effect, and nothing explains the accepted form of 'domain' (single hostname vs. with scheme/subdomain).
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 and resource ('Generate ... candidate list') plus the output character ('typo-oriented'), the scope ('one authorized domain'), and the boundary ('bounded'). This clearly separates it from siblings like dns_enumeration and subdomain_enumeration, which discover real assets rather than synthesizing typo candidates.
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?
'for one authorized domain' implies an authorization precondition, and the no-resolve/no-contact clause hints at how results are meant to be consumed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named follow-up alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.