Build targeted Google dork URLs for a name, email, username, or domain locally, enabling passive OSINT without sending queries.
Generate targeted Google dork URLs for any target (name, email, username, domain). [passive] Builds Google search URLs locally; sends nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| json_output | No | Return result as structured JSON. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.36.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most operationally important trait: URLs are built locally and nothing is transmitted, making the call safe and repeatable. It omits secondary traits such as how many dorks are produced, deduplication, or whether any file is written.
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 zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the safety posture is appended compactly as "[passive] ... sends nothing." Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter URL generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it produces (dork URLs), the accepted inputs, and the local/no-network behavior. Minor gaps remain around output shape (list vs single URL) and result volume, but nothing critical for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 50%: json_output is documented in the schema, but target is a bare string with no schema description. The description compensates by enumerating the accepted target forms (name, email, username, domain), which is exactly the missing semantics an agent needs.
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 ("Generate targeted Google dork URLs") and enumerates the accepted target types (name, email, username, domain), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name the obvious sibling search_dorks_live, though the "[passive] ... sends nothing" note implicitly distinguishes local generation from a live query.
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?
Usage is implied by "for any target (name, email, username, domain)" and by the passive/local framing, which hints this is the safe pre-step before a live search. However, no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g., search_dorks_live) is given, so the agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.