ipIP/netblock allocation record.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"address": "8.8.8.8"
},
"name": "ip"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | Alias for `address`. | |
| address | No | IP address, e.g. "8.8.8.8". Also accepted as `ip`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "address"
-]Input schema / properties / address / descriptionAdded value: +"IP address, e.g. \"8.8.8.8\". Also accepted as `ip`."Input schema / properties / ipAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for `address`.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "8.8.8.8"
+ },
+ {
+ "address": "192.0.2.0/24"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "RDAP IP/netblock allocation record",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the noun phrase; it does not explain output format, scope, or any side effects. It merely restates the resource type without disclosing additional behavior.
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 extremely terse—a single noun phrase—but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks a complete sentence and any functional language that would help an agent act on it.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to clarify the tool's core purpose. It does not explain how to invoke it or what kind of 'allocation record' is returned, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's functionality.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the 'address' field and its alias 'ip'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not improve upon the schema's completeness.
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 'IP/netblock allocation record' names a resource type but lacks an action verb. It vaguely indicates the tool deals with IP addresses or netblocks, but does not clearly state what the tool does, leaving it ambiguous whether it is a lookup, search, or other operation.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus sibling tools like domain, asn, or nameserver, and does not mention any prerequisites or alternative choices.
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.