bgp_leaksRecent BGP route-leak events detected by Cloudflare. Returns leaker AS, victim AS, originated prefixes, start/end times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-500 (default 50) | |
| date_range | No | Lookback window (default 28d) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of BGP leak events | |
| events | Yes | List of BGP leak events |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date_range": "28d",
+ "limit": 50
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 100
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total number of BGP leak events",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "events": {
+ "description": "List of BGP leak events",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "finished_at": {
+ "description": "Event end timestamp",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Event identifier",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "leak_count": {
+ "description": "Number of leaked prefixes",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "leaker_asn": {
+ "description": "AS number of the leaker",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "leaker_name": {
+ "description": "Name of the leaker AS",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ongoing": {
+ "description": "Whether the leak is still ongoing",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "origin_asns": {
+ "description": "ASNs of originated prefixes",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "started_at": {
+ "description": "Event start timestamp",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "events"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating the data source (Cloudflare) and the specific fields returned, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.
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 low-complexity tool with a clear output schema (implicitly present), the description is complete: it specifies the source, type of events, and returned fields. No additional context is needed.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (limit and date_range). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints for parameters, keeping the score at baseline.
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 clearly states the tool returns 'Recent BGP route-leak events detected by Cloudflare' and specifies the exact data fields (leaker AS, victim AS, originated prefixes, start/end times). This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to offer similar functionality.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to get recent BGP route-leak events, but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. However, given the uniqueness of this tool among siblings, the usage context is clear enough.
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.