MCP AbuseIPDB Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a real-time query or cached data, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably accesses external threat intelligence 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 tool that retrieves threat intelligence data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the blacklist returns (e.g., list of IPs with metadata), whether results are paginated, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would be left guessing about important operational aspects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation of both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps either.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('AbuseIPDB blacklist of malicious IP addresses'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings by focusing on retrieving a blacklist rather than checking individual IPs or performing bulk operations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'check_ip' or 'bulk_check'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide between this retrieval operation and other available tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.