Retrieve a domain's trust and reputation score (0–100) to assess website safety and flag potential phishing or malware risk.
Semantic alias for inspect_domain. Get the trust and reputation score (0-100) for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name (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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output meaning and scale (0-100), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it performs an external lookup, or whether there are rate limits 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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The alias relationship is stated first, followed immediately by the output measure and range.
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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives the essential return value and its range. It could be improved with a note on read-only behavior or lookup source, but it is largely complete for this tool's complexity.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names a specific resource (domain), a specific measure (trust and reputation score), and an output range (0-100). It also explicitly identifies itself as a semantic alias for the sibling tool inspect_domain, which helps distinguish its role.
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?
Calling itself an alias for inspect_domain implies interchangeable use, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over inspect_domain or check_domain_safety. There are no exclusions or conditions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.