WHOIS MCP 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. It effectively describes key behaviors: it 'automatically resolves organization details and extracts contact information,' returns 'structured contact data with clear categorization,' and is 'perfect for incident response, network troubleshooting, and compliance reporting.' However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a database query tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. However, it includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., repeating 'contact information' and listing many keywords) that could be trimmed for better conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (querying a regional database with multiple input types), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral aspects (like automatic resolution and structured returns), and contextualizes it within sibling tools. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits detailed return value explanations, focusing on high-level outcomes.

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 for 'ip,' 'asn,' and 'org' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations' but not elaborating on parameter interactions or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'retrieving contact information (abuse, NOC, admin, tech) for IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations from the AfriNIC database.' It specifies the verb ('retrieving'), resource ('contact information'), and scope ('AfriNIC database'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's 'specifically for the AfriNIC RIR (African region).'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'PREFERRED TOOL for retrieving contact information... Use this when you need to CONTACT someone about: abuse reports, security incidents, network issues, or administrative matters.' It also lists keywords and contrasts with siblings by specifying the AfriNIC region, helping differentiate from tools like 'apnic_contact_card' or 'arin_contact_card.'

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