Block an IP address to prevent unauthorized access and security threats. Add the IP to the blocked list to stop it from reaching your server.
Block IP
HTTP: POST /v1/security/blocked-ips Category: Security Required scopes: security:write Mutating: changes server state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / bodyAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs.",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already encode readOnlyHint=false, so 'Mutating: changes server state' adds little new behavioral information. The description does contribute the security:write scope requirement, but it does not explain side effects, permanence, or what changes to the blocked-IP list actually occur.
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 short, front-loaded with 'Block IP', and then gives endpoint, category, scope, and mutating flag in a scannable structure. The 'Category: Security' line is somewhat redundant with the endpoint path, but overall there is no fluff.
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 mutating security endpoint with an opaque request body and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It omits the required body shape and any return/error behavior, and only says to see API docs via the schema.
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 only parameter is an open 'body' object whose schema is explicitly 'not statically declared' and defers to API docs, so an agent cannot determine what fields to send. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, making this effectively a 0%-semantic-coverage case despite the 100% schema-description signal.
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 opens with 'Block IP' and gives the exact endpoint, so the action and resource are clear. It distinguishes this mutation from the GET/DELETE blocked-IP siblings by verb, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the firewall-rules 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The scope requirement is authentication context, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and related security endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.