Netdetective MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid IP formats, rate limits, or data source reliability.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, its brevity contributes to underspecification—additional sentences explaining return value or usage context would earn their place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description lacks critical context: what specific information the query returns and in what format. Without an output schema, this omission is significant.

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% ('The IP address to use for the query. Defaults to the ip address of the connecting client'), establishing the baseline score. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed given the single, well-documented optional 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?

The description identifies the resource (IP address) and action (query), but 'information' is vague—it doesn't specify what data is returned (geolocation, ownership, reputation, etc.). Without sibling tools, differentiation is moot, but the purpose remains under-specified.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, but usage is implied by the description (use when you need IP information). With no sibling tools to differentiate from, this represents minimal viable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.