Resolve an IP address to associated hostnames via PTR records, enabling network reconnaissance and asset identification during authorized security assessments.
Reverse-resolve an IP address to hostname(s) via PTR record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the PTR mechanism, which usefully signals that answers may be missing for IPs without reverse zones, but it says nothing about timeout behavior, failure/empty results, or resolver specifics.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Every clause earns its 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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; 'hostname(s)' usefully hints that multiple records may be returned. Only the absence of failure-mode or format notes keeps it from full completeness.
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?
Only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying the input is 'an IP address' clarifies the expected format beyond the bare 'ip' string field, but gives no IPv4/IPv6 or formatting detail.
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?
States a specific verb ('reverse-resolve') and resource ('IP address to hostname(s)') plus the mechanism (PTR record). This clearly distinguishes it from forward-looking siblings like dns_lookup, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 reverse-vs-forward distinction is implied by 'reverse-resolve an IP address', so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit 'use dns_lookup for hostnames' routing or any stated prerequisites, leaving guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.