Look up an IP's reputation in the SANS Internet Storm Center (DShield) data (keyless): how many attack reports it has across how many target sensors over the observed window, the network/AS it belongs to, and which ISC threat feeds list it. A high report count is a scanning/attacking signal. For a host name the first resolved IP is used. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | IP address or host name, e.g. 45.83.66.10 or example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses keyless access, read-only nature, hostname-to-IP resolution behavior (first resolved IP), the observation window concept, and how to interpret counts (high = scanning/attacking). Lacks rate-limit or failure-mode details.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the source and returned fields, then interpretation, then edge-case handling, then safety. No waste.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: source, output dimensions, interpretation, and hostname behavior. Could note response shape or data freshness windows more explicitly.
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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the hostname-resolution nuance (first IP used) beyond the schema, but does not elaborate further on the single target parameter.
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?
Specific verb (look up) and resource (IP reputation in SANS DShield), plus concrete data returned: attack report counts, target sensor spread, network/AS, and ISC threat feed membership. Clearly distinct from generic siblings like ip_reputation or ip_reputation_aggregate by naming the data source.
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?
Implies usage (reputation lookup, scanning signal) but never states when to choose this over sibling tools such as ip_reputation_aggregate, blacklist_check, or tor_exit_check. No explicit exclusions or selection criteria.
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.
