OpenOSINT

by kush-coder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

search_paste

Find Pastebin dump matches for an email or username via psbdmp.ws to check for exposed credentials or mentions.

Instructions

Search Pastebin dumps for an email or username via psbdmp.ws. [passive] One request to psbdmp.ws.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_paste"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`json_output`	No	Return result as structured JSON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.36.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real context: the '[passive]' collection tag and 'One request to psbdmp.ws' implying a cheap, low-noise external lookup. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, and result shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the action and scope up front. Minor redundancy: 'psbdmp.ws' appears in both sentences, so one sentence does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and behavior; it does not say what a hit looks like (paste IDs, dates, counts) or how results are ranked. For a simple 2-param read tool this is adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: json_output is documented, but 'query' has no schema description. The description compensates by stating the query is an email or username, which is meaningful. It does not cover query syntax, matching behavior, or result format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (Search), a specific resource (Pastebin dumps), the target entities (email or username), and the upstream source (psbdmp.ws). It is distinguishable from siblings by resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent tools like search_breach or search_dorks_live.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is provided. The 'email or username' phrasing implies the investigative scenario, but an agent gets no guidance on choosing this over the many other search_* siblings.

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