Retrieve the current list of blocked IP addresses to review security restrictions and manage access control.
List all blocked IP addresses
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_blocked_ips"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all blocked IP addresses, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it provides no additional context such as whether pagination is used, if IP formats are IPv4/IPv6, or if any privileges are required. For a simple list operation, it is adequate but not richly transparent.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('blocked IP addresses'). Every word earns its place, with no superfluous content.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple list operation), the description is complete enough to convey what the tool does. It does not explain return format, but for a list of IPs, the expected output is obvious. There are no major gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing param-related information. No further parameter semantics are necessary.
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's function: 'List all blocked IP addresses'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('blocked IP addresses'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like block_ip, unblock_ip, and other list tools.
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 usage when you need to view blocked IPs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., a filtered search). There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.