rybbit_get_excluded_ipsRetrieve IP addresses excluded from tracking for a site to audit tracking configuration and identify which addresses bypass analytics.
Get the list of IP addresses excluded from tracking for a site. Useful for auditing tracking configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds useful scoping semantics ('from tracking for a site'), but it does not mention return format, pagination, or whether the list could be empty.
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?
Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first states the core action and resource, and the second gives a practical audit context. No filler or redundancy.
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, read-only, idempotent getter, the description is complete enough. It identifies the returned concept (list of excluded IPs), the scope (site), and a use case (tracking config audit), while the schema and annotations cover the parameter and side-effect profile.
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% and the siteId parameter is already documented as 'Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)'. The description only reinforces the 'for a site' scope and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the burden.
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 action and resource: 'Get the list of IP addresses excluded from tracking for a site.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as rybbit_get_excluded_countries and other read-only getters by naming the exact data returned.
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 phrase 'Useful for auditing tracking configuration' gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear guidance with no exclusions, rather than a fully specified routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.