Yumi Python Import Layout Evidence

network_set_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares bounded mathematical IPv4 and IPv6 address sets and reports canonical normalized, added, removed, count, and witness evidence; it does not assess reachability, routing, security policy, configuration, or host usability.

Tool call template

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "network_set_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	Yes
`before`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: inputs are treated as 'bounded mathematical' sets (i.e., literal, not resolved), output values are canonicalized, and the tool is purely set-algebraic with no reachability/routing/config semantics — which prevents the agent from misreading it as a network validator.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb-and-resource and appends the exclusion clause with a semicolon. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully enumerates the returned evidence fields (normalized, added, removed, count, witness). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly, with the only residual gap being input string format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the parameters conceptually as IPv4/IPv6 'address sets' and hints at bounding, but never clarifies whether entries are single addresses or CIDR ranges, nor what 'canonical normalized' means for input format. Partial compensation only.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (compares) and resource (bounded mathematical IPv4/IPv6 address sets) plus the exact outputs produced (canonical normalized, added, removed, count, witness). The scope is narrow enough that it cannot be confused with the unrelated sibling pypi_wheel_evidence.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The use case is clear from 'compares ... address sets', and the negative list ('does not assess reachability, routing, security policy, configuration, or host usability') explicitly rules out the adjacent tasks an agent might otherwise pick this tool for. No named alternative is offered, but no sibling operates in this domain, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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

All Yumi Python Import Layout Evidence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?