Where this user's requests to the site leave from (a VPN country, the server, or the app's default) and which browser they present. Read-only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_network_identity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does contribute the key safety signal 'Read-only', plus the domain of possible egress sources (VPN country, server, app default). However, it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, latency, or what the response looks like, so a simple read tool is covered but not richly so.
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?
A single compact sentence with a parenthetical enumerating the possible egress sources, front-loading the answer and ending with the read-only note. The nested parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse than a flat sentence, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it names the concepts (egress location, browser) but not the actual fields or value shapes an agent would receive. For a zero-parameter read this is adequate but leaves the return contract partly implicit.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant argument commentary.
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 states a specific verb-ish outcome: it reports where the user's requests egress from (VPN country, server, or app default) and which browser/user agent is presented. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the setter sibling, though the phrasing 'Where this user's requests to the site leave from' is indirect rather than a clean 'Returns the current outbound network identity'.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but 'Read-only' plus the getter framing implies the read counterpart to set_network_identity without naming it. An agent can infer it inspects rather than changes the identity, but no exclusions or alternatives are spelled out.
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.