calculate_subnet
Fetch Subnet info for a given ipaddress/subnet/CIDR
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subnet | Yes | IP address, subnet, or CIDR notation |
Fetch Subnet info for a given ipaddress/subnet/CIDR
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subnet | Yes | IP address, subnet, or CIDR notation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / subnet / descriptionAdded value: +"IP address, subnet, or CIDR notation"Input schema / properties / subnet / titleRemoved value: -"Subnet"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"calculate_subnetArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "calculate_subnetOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to indicate whether this performs local calculation or external queries, what the return format contains, or error handling for invalid CIDR notation.
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?
Extremely concise at 8 words in a single sentence. Every word earns its place with the action verb front-loaded. No redundant or filler text present.
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?
For a calculation tool with no output schema, the description inadequately describes the return value. 'Subnet info' is ambiguous—users need to know if this returns network/broadcast addresses, usable IP ranges, or mask conversions to select this tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'subnet' parameter fully documented as accepting 'IP address, subnet, or CIDR notation'. The description essentially mirrors this information without adding syntax examples, validation rules, or format preferences, meeting the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('Subnet info'), and specifies acceptable input formats (ipaddress/subnet/CIDR). However, it lacks specificity about what 'info' entails (network ranges, masks, host counts) and does not differentiate from sibling network tools like whois_lookup.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings include other network utilities (dns_lookup, whois_lookup, certificate_info), the description should clarify this performs IP math/calculation rather than external lookups or domain queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.