Retrieve all public IP addresses for TRMNL core servers to allowlist plugin poll requests. Use it to confirm which originating IPs your integrations should trust.
List all TRMNL server IP addresses Returns a list of public IP addresses for all TRMNL core servers.
Plugin poll requests will only originate from these IPs.
TRMNL GET /api/ips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that the IPs are public and are the source of plugin poll requests, though it does not discuss response format or caching.
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 brief and front-loaded, starting with the action and resource. Every sentence supplies relevant information: what is returned, why the IPs matter, and the upstream API endpoint.
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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value as a list of public IP addresses. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the single parameter, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.
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?
There is one optional parameter, profile, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond that, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: list all TRMNL server IP addresses. It immediately clarifies the returned data as public IPs for all core servers, making the tool easily distinguishable from the many management and mutation siblings.
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 line about plugin poll requests originating only from these IPs gives clear contextual guidance for why an agent would call this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclude scenarios, but no sibling performs this specific lookup, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.