proxies-sx-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no account is needed, and it specifies the health signals returned, though it does not discuss rate limits or response format.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the operational trigger, so an agent can decide quickly.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains what is checked, when to call it, and that no authentication is required.

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 has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 and resource: checking whether Proxies.sx is healthy right now. It also names the concrete health signals returned (incidents, API/gateway/relay state, uptime), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: call it when requests fail with 5xx or E_INTERNAL before retrying in a loop. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: 'Local, no network', an explicit warning that 'The result contains the password', the sticky-holds-device-not-IP caveat, and the rule that sticky/hard/auto* only persist across connections with a sid. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and host, then layered prerequisites, pool meanings and rotation semantics. The middle rotation sentence is dense and runs long, but for 17 parameters with meaningful enums the length is largely earned; little is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does tell the agent the result contains a URL plus the password, though it doesn't say the exact return shape. Combined with full schema coverage and rich rotation/pool explanation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the precise return structure is unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the pool enum's real-world meaning ('mbl' = carrier modems in a fixed country list, 'any'/'best' = gateway chooses), rotation mode behavior, and the sid dependency for persistence. The asn/isp/failover/strict interactions are left to the 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 and resource — 'Build a ready-to-use Pool Gateway proxy URL' — and immediately names the host and ports (gw.proxies.sx, 7000/7001). No sibling tool builds URLs, and the description makes that scope unmistakable.

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?

It routes the agent to prerequisites ('Take proxyUsername and password from pool_get_my_credentials') and to pool_get_facets for city/state/carrier values, which is genuine usage guidance. It doesn't state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. when a plain status check suffices), but for a builder tool the context is largely covered.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Local, no network,' which is useful confirmation rather than contradiction. It also discloses the scope of supported error codes, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., what happens for an unrecognized code).

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by input format and scope. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, local, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, accepted input formats, supported error coverage, and the fact that it returns remediation guidance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single param is already described, so the baseline is met. The description earns credit above baseline by clarifying accepted input forms — full error line like "E_NO_STOCK_COUNTRY: ... (req: ...)" or a bare code — which the schema alone does not make explicit.

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+resource ('Explain a Pool Gateway error') plus the follow-on action ('say what to do about it'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pool_get_stock or get_service_status, and an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering context: pass the error text your HTTP client got from gw.proxies.sx, or just the code, and enumerates the covered error families (E_AUTH_INVALID, E_BALANCE_EXHAUSTED, E_NO_STOCK_COUNTRY, rate/session limits). It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real context beyond that: no authentication is required, results carry counts, and the returned values are guaranteed consumable by pool_build_proxy_url. It doesn't say anything about ordering or handling of empty facet sets, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned facet set, then the consumer relationship, then the filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor slack is the parenthetical '(with ASN and class)' and the tacked-on 'no account needed' clause.

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 5-parameter read-only facet tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, auth requirements and filter semantics. The remaining gap is the pool selector (peer vs mbl vs all), which is documented only in the schema and changes what stock is counted.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that the filter parameters change what 'remains' in the counts rather than merely slicing a list, and by tying returned values to the arguments pool_build_proxy_url accepts. It does not explain the pool enum semantics (peer/mbl/all), leaving that entirely to the 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 and resource set: 'List the cities, states, carriers (with ASN and class) and IP classes that have stock in one country, with counts.' It also ties itself to the sibling pool_build_proxy_url by naming the values it produces, so an agent can distinguish it from pool_get_stock or pool_build_proxy_url without opening either schema.

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?

Clear on two usage points: it can be called with no account, and passing city/state/carrier shows 'what remains once that filter is applied' – i.e. use it to preview narrowing before building a URL. There is no explicit when-not or a direct comparison to pool_get_stock, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new context: "no account needed" (an auth requirement that annotations cannot express) and "live" stock. It stops short of exhaustively characterizing the response payload, but it goes well beyond restating 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?

Three tight sentences; the core capability and the no-account caveat are front-loaded, followed by the mode-dependent output shape and the routing hint. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and mostly discharges it by describing counts per mode. Minor gaps remain (no pagination or response-format detail), but for a single-optional-param read tool this is sufficient to call 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% and documents the ISO format, so the description's job is to add meaning — which it does by explaining that supplying a country narrows the results to that country's mbl/peer counts and per-class breakdown. That is real semantic value beyond "2-letter ISO country code."

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 and resource ("Get live Pool Gateway stock") and immediately distinguishes itself from pool_build_proxy_url by positioning itself as the prerequisite selection step. The two operating modes (with vs. without a country) are spelled out concretely.

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?

"Use it to pick a pool and country before pool_build_proxy_url" names both the purpose and the downstream alternative, so an agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool versus building the URL. No inference required.

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