Check IP reputation: blacklists, Tor exit node detection, reverse DNS.
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": "check_ip"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 address to check (e.g. 8.8.8.8) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the substantive detail of what data sources are consulted, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or whether results are cached — modest added value over 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact clause with the resource front-loaded and the three check types following — zero filler. It stops just short of a full sentence, which slightly limits readability but wastes nothing.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition gives enough: what is checked and that it is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive query. The absence of any note on response shape or error behavior for malformed IPs is the only remaining gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'ip' parameter is documented with an example (8.8.8.8). The description contributes no additional semantics such as private/reserved-range handling or whether IPv6 is rejected, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (IP reputation) and enumerates the three checks performed: blacklists, Tor exit node detection, reverse DNS. The 'IP' subject matter cleanly separates it from siblings like check_domain and check_email without needing an explicit exclusion.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for IPv4 reputation lookups, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over full_scan or when a domain/email check would be the wrong tool. No prerequisites or alternative routing are given.
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.