phoneinfoga_scanScan a phone number to extract country, carrier, line type, and search engine results for OSINT investigations.
Scan a phone number with PhoneInfoga: country, number formats, carrier and line type (with an API key), and search engine queries for it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Phone number in international (E.164) format, e.g. +14155552671 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful context: carrier/line type requires an API key and the scan involves search engine queries, implying external web activity. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 stating the action and then efficiently enumerating the result categories. There is no filler or redundant information, and every element earns its place.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides a clear outline of the returned information domains. It lacks explicit response structure or error/edge-case details, but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'number' parameter with format (E.164) and example (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'scan', names the resource (a phone number), and lists concrete outputs: country, number formats, carrier/line type (with an API key), and search engine queries. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools targeting emails, usernames, domains, or metadata.
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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and description — scanning phone numbers — but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are obviously for other entity types, so the context is clear but not directly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.