ProjectDiscovery 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 ('Resolve DNS records') but lacks details on behavior: e.g., whether it queries public DNS or internal servers, rate limits, error handling, or output format (though no output schema exists). For a network tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Resolve DNS records') and specifies the target ('for domains and subdomains'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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 complexity (network operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resolve' entails operationally, potential side effects (e.g., network traffic), or return values. For a tool in a security testing context (based on sibling names), more context on use cases and limitations is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('domains' and 'recordType') adequately. The description implies these parameters by mentioning 'domains and subdomains' and 'DNS records', but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of record types, domain formatting). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('DNS records for domains and subdomains'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like httpx (HTTP probing) or subfinder (subdomain enumeration) by focusing on DNS resolution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'resolve' entails (e.g., querying DNS servers, returning IP addresses).

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 use cases (e.g., troubleshooting, reconnaissance), prerequisites (e.g., network access), or comparisons with sibling tools like httpx (which may also perform DNS lookups). Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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