Check if an IP address is a known Tor exit node via a cached list, helping identify Tor traffic or anonymization risk.
Check if a specific IP address is a known Tor exit node. Uses cached exit node list.
| 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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: results come from a cached exit node list, which tells the agent answers may be stale relative to live Tor consensus data.
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, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the caching caveat. Every sentence 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, read-only lookup with no output schema and clear annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The one minor gap is that it doesn't indicate the nature of the result (a boolean/verdict plus exit-node metadata), which the agent must infer.
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 parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('IP address to check', with ipv4/ipv6 formats), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about accepted formats beyond what the schema already encodes, which is the baseline case.
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 ('Check') and resource ('a specific IP address is a known Tor exit node'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tor_exit_nodes or tor_exit_details, though 'a specific IP address' implies single-IP lookup versus those list/detail 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?
Usage is implied by the phrasing 'check a specific IP', which contrasts with the list/detail siblings, but the description never states when to pick this tool over tor_exit_nodes or tor_exit_details, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.