Check an IP address to determine whether it is a known scanner or known benign service; returns a simplified classification.
Quick GreyNoise check: is this IP a known scanner or known benign service? Returns simplified classification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP address to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a 'simplified classification', but says nothing about rate limits, API key requirements, or what 'simplified' omits relative to a full lookup.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the core question before the return note. Appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup tool.
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, single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the description conveys the query and the shape of the answer. It stops short of explaining the classification values, which matters slightly given there is no output 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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema already describing it as 'IP address to check'. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted formats or normalization behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('GreyNoise check' on an IP) plus the question it answers (known scanner vs known benign service). The words 'Quick' and 'simplified' imply a lightweight variant of a fuller lookup, but it never names the sibling 'greynoise_ip', so the distinction is left implicit.
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?
'Quick' and 'Returns simplified classification' imply a fast triage use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Notably, the sibling 'greynoise_ip' is never mentioned as the alternative for full detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.