Check if a domain is safe, malicious, or a scam and get its reputation score and security verdict before visiting or sharing a link.
Semantic alias for inspect_domain. Quick check if a website is safe, malicious, or a scam. Returns reputation score and security verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name to check (e.g., example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It partially does by naming the outputs (reputation score, security verdict), but says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, whether results are cached or live, latency, or auth requirements.
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?
Three short sentences, with the most important fact (it is an alias of inspect_domain) front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes either routing information or expected output.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient: it names the outputs but not their shape. Given that this is a deliberate duplicate of inspect_domain alongside get_domain_reputation and scan_url, it should say more about when this alias is preferred.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the domain argument. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about format, normalization, URL-vs-domain handling, or subdomain behavior, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 (check a domain's safety) plus what the result contains (reputation score, security verdict). It also declares itself a 'semantic alias for inspect_domain', which is genuinely differentiating routing information, though it does not distinguish itself from get_domain_reputation or scan_url, which sound closely related.
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 alias note implies it is interchangeable with inspect_domain, which is a partial usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other siblings (get_domain_reputation, scan_url), so an agent still has to guess which of the near-duplicate tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.