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 describes the tool's function (querying historical DNS resolutions) and output (showing hostnames or IPs), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It does not contradict annotations, but could benefit from more behavioral context like query limits or source reliability.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second elaborating on output. The Args section is concise and directly relevant, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations, especially for a security-related tool.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'ip_or_domain' accepts IPv4/IPv6 addresses or domain names, clarifying the parameter's purpose and valid formats. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could note constraints like format validation or examples.

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 specific action ('Query CIRCL Passive DNS for historical DNS resolutions') and resource ('IP or domain'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'shodan_host_lookup' or 'get_domain_intel' by focusing on historical DNS data rather than real-time or broader intelligence. It explicitly mentions what the tool does: showing hostnames that resolved to an IP or IPs a domain pointed to.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for historical DNS lookups of IPs or domains. It implies usage by specifying the type of data queried, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'shodan_host_lookup' for real-time host data), leaving some room for improvement in distinguishing from similar tools.

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