Enumerate subdomains of a main domain using subfinder and amass to map the attack surface for bug bounty reconnaissance.
子域名枚举（使用 subfinder + amass）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | No | 使用的工具（默认 all） | |
| domain | Yes | 主域名（如 example.com） | |
| timeout_ms | No | 超时时间（毫秒） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the tools used, giving a hint that it may be more thorough/slower than alternatives, but it does not describe output format, side effects, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and tools used. It is concise and has no wasted words, though it lacks structural elements like prerequisites or usage examples.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, any performance implications (e.g., amass being slow), or how it differs from the lite sibling. An agent would need to open the schema and infer behavior from the tool name alone.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how the 'tools' parameter interacts with the default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the burden.
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 states a specific verb ('enumerate') and resource ('subdomains'), and mentions the tools used (subfinder + amass). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'enumerate-subdomains-lite', so the purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or the lite variant. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.