CVE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data sources (crt.sh, CIRCL PDNS) and return types (subdomains, certificate history) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This is inadequate for a tool with external API dependencies.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure efficiently separates high-level functionality from parameter details.

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 moderate complexity (external data sources), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like rate limits or data latency, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'domain' by providing an example ('e.g. example.com') and clarifying it's for investigation. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could specify format constraints like TLD requirements.

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 specific verbs ('get domain intelligence') and resources ('certificate transparency logs (crt.sh) and passive DNS records (CIRCL PDNS)'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on domain investigation rather than vulnerability scanning, reputation checks, or other security functions.

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 implies usage for domain investigation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'passive_dns_lookup' or 'shodan_host_lookup'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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