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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it 'automatically resolves organization details and extracts contact information,' returns 'structured contact data with clear categorization,' and is for 'incident response, network troubleshooting, and compliance reporting.' However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the key purpose and usage context. Most sentences add value, such as specifying the region and use cases. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'contact' in keywords) and could be slightly more streamlined 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral aspects like automatic resolution and structured returns, and distinguishes it from siblings. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the schema covers parameters fully.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (ip, asn, org) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the tool works with 'IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations' but doesn't provide syntax or format details not already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 for IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations from the APNIC database.' It specifies the resource (APNIC database), the action (retrieving contact information), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly stating it's for the APNIC RIR region (Asia-Pacific) and is the 'PREFERRED TOOL' for contact retrieval, unlike whois_query 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to CONTACT someone about: abuse reports, security incidents, network issues, or administrative matters.' It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying it's for the APNIC region and lists keywords to trigger usage. It also implicitly suggests when not to use it (e.g., for non-APNIC regions, where sibling tools like arin_contact_card would be appropriate).

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