As Lookup
as_lookupRead-onlyIdempotent
HackerTarget as_lookup lookup.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Hackertarget
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context about data sources, rate limits, result structure, or any quirks. It merely repeats the tool name, adding little value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no usable information beyond restating the tool name and source. It does not front-load any meaningful guidance, so the brevity is not a virtue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple lookup with one parameter and annotations covering safety, one might expect a minimal description to suffice. However, the description is so sparse that it fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, or return value. It is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single 'target' string parameter with zero description. The description does not compensate for this 0% schema coverage; it never explains what 'target' refers to (e.g., IP, domain, ASN, or something else). This leaves the agent unable to infer correct parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'HackerTarget as_lookup lookup' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and source. It does not specify what kind of lookup is performed (e.g., autonomous system lookup), what the target means, or what information is returned. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling lookup tools like dns_lookup or reverse_ip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative lookup/OSINT tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts where this lookup is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and entity_profile have overlapping purposes, causing potential confusion. However, their descriptions provide some differentiation, so an agent can usually pick the right one with careful reading.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is highly inconsistent: mixes verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_verb (reverse_dns), single-word (geoip), and compound phrases (generate_llms_txt). No clear pattern, making it hard for an agent to predict tool names.
Tool Count2/5
44 tools is overwhelmingly high for a single server. The set mixes unrelated domains (network tools, data APIs, memory, prediction markets), suggesting it's a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks a coherent domain, so evaluating completeness is difficult. There are many lookup tools but few for updates or deletes (except memory). The HackerTarget subset is sparse, and the overall surface feels incomplete for any single purpose.