Get information about a CIDR range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cidr | Yes | CIDR notation (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cidr | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| netmask | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| hostmask | No | ||
| last_host | No | ||
| num_hosts | No | ||
| first_host | No | ||
| is_private | No | ||
| num_addresses | No | ||
| prefix_length | No | ||
| network_address | No | ||
| broadcast_address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but no details on potential side effects or permissions are given. It is adequate but minimal.
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 very concise and to the point, but it could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., mention what kind of information is returned). It is not verbose.
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?
Given the simple single parameter and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is reasonably complete. It does not cover edge cases or examples, but the tool is straightforward.
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 parameter 'cidr' is well-described with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 information about a CIDR range. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like network_info or expand_cidr, which might provide overlapping 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like cidr_to_netmask or subnet_calculator. There are many sibling tools with similar purposes.
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.
