ProxyRange

Where a provider’s IPs come from

sourcing_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

ProxyRange’s sourcing check for one residential proxy provider: Clear, Unclear or Concerning, with its confidence, the reasons behind it, and the evidence items (what each source says, a link to it, and when we saw it), plus the provider’s reply if it sent one. Residential proxies route traffic through other people’s devices, so this is what we could establish about how those devices were enrolled.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	Yes	Provider id, name or website, e.g. "iproyal", "Bright Data", "decodo.com" or a former name such as "Smartproxy"
`evidenceLimit`	No	At most this many evidence items (default 20, up to 60)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`page`	Yes
`level`	Yes	null: not yet reviewed
`reply`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`checked`	Yes
`licence`	Yes
`meaning`	Yes
`reasons`	Yes
`updated`	Yes	The newest date any fact in the data was checked (YYYY-MM-DD)
`evidence`	Yes
`howToRead`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes	How to credit the data when you show it
`corrections`	Yes
`rightOfReply`	Yes
`evidenceTotal`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / corrections
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / archived

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A Wayback Machine copy of the source, as it read when archived",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / evidence / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "kind",
-  "claim",
-  "quote",
-  "source",
-  "observed",
-  "confidence"
-]New value: +[
+  "kind",
+  "claim",
+  "quote",
+  "source",
+  "archived",
+  "observed",
+  "confidence"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / howToRead
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / rightOfReply
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "page",
-  "level",
-  "meaning",
-  "confidence",
-  "checked",
-  "reasons",
-  "evidence",
-  "evidenceTotal",
-  "reply",
-  "method",
-  "updated",
-  "attribution",
-  "licence"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "page",
+  "level",
+  "meaning",
+  "confidence",
+  "checked",
+  "reasons",
+  "evidence",
+  "evidenceTotal",
+  "reply",
+  "howToRead",
+  "rightOfReply",
+  "corrections",
+  "method",
+  "updated",
+  "attribution",
+  "licence"
+]

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add semantics — which it does: it enumerates the verdict scale (Clear/Unclear/Concerning), confidence, reasons, evidence items with source quotes, links and timestamps, plus any provider reply. It also explains why the domain matters (residential proxies route through other people's devices).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result shape; the trailing sentence provides domain rationale rather than filler. Slightly long-winded in the evidence enumeration but every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the return values don't need re-explaining, and the description covers scope, verdict semantics and rationale. Only the absence of routing guidance versus sibling tools keeps it from 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the provider parameter already carries example formats, including former names. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: a 'sourcing check for one residential proxy provider' that returns a rating with confidence, reasons and evidence. That is clearly distinct from get_provider and compare_providers, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it's for judging how a provider enrolled its IPs, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead when…' guidance against the six siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ProxyRange tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.