Get subnet mask from prefix length.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix_length | Yes | CIDR prefix length (0-32) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary | Yes | ||
| subnet_mask | Yes | ||
| num_addresses | Yes | ||
| prefix_length | Yes | ||
| wildcard_mask | Yes | ||
| num_usable_hosts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Description is minimal ('Get subnet mask'), giving no insight into return format or edge cases. However, for a simple conversion, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with action. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
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 one required parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (presumed), the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward conversion tool. No gaps in essential info.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond 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?
Description clearly states the tool converts prefix length to subnet mask. However, sibling tools like 'cidr_to_netmask' likely perform the same conversion, and the description offers no differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cidr_to_netmask, netmask_to_cidr). No when-not or context provided.
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.
