Retrieve WHOIS registration data for an in-scope domain during passive reconnaissance to map ownership, registrar, and registration details without touching the target.
Fetch WHOIS registration data for an in-scope domain. Passive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Passive' is a genuinely useful trait, but the description says nothing about rate limits or registry-side throttling, whether results are cached, what happens on lookup failure or privacy-redacted domains, or what the response contains.
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 the scope constraint and the passive trait front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic 'Passive.' fragment is slightly clipped but still readable.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It falls short on input format expectations and on what an agent should do with the result, leaving meaningful gaps for a recon step in an engagement workflow.
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 single 'domain' parameter is undocumented in structured data. The description only implies it via 'in-scope domain' and does not clarify expected format (apex vs. subdomain vs. URL), whether punycode is accepted, or how scope enforcement applies.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Fetch') with a specific resource ('WHOIS registration data') and scopes it to 'an in-scope domain'. That is far more precise than the sibling recon tools (dns, subdomains, portscan, tech), though it does not explicitly name how it differs from them.
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 an in-scope domain' implies a scope-check precondition, and 'Passive' signals it does not touch the target directly. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer pentest_recon_dns or pentest_osint_crtsh instead, and no note about whether pentest_scope_check must run first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.