Return the caller's IP address and its network classification. Live request.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"ip": "<ip>"
},
"name": "ip"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP to inspect (default caller) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ipAdded value: +{
+ "description": "IP to inspect (default caller)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "ip"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it makes a 'Live request' (a useful behavioral trait), but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and what 'network classification' entails. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that immediately state the core action and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary 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?
The tool has a required 'ip' parameter, but the description says 'Return the caller's IP address' without acknowledging that an IP must be supplied, creating a potential mismatch with the schema. It also does not explain what 'network classification' includes (e.g., public/private, country, ISP) or return format, which is needed since no output schema exists.
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 has 100% description coverage, including a clear description for the 'ip' parameter. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameter affects the output or what happens when it is omitted, but the baseline is 3 given full schema coverage.
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 and resource: return the caller's IP address and its network classification. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like geolocate_ip or ipv4_validate.
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 guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no naming of alternatives. The only hint is 'Live request', which implies real-time lookup but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over geolocate_ip or other IP-related tools.
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.