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 behavioral traits: it's a query tool (implied read-only), specifies the regional scope ('APNIC RIR - Asia-Pacific region'), indicates it returns 'complete object information' and 'raw APNIC database records with all attributes for detailed analysis.' It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It starts with the core purpose, specifies the regional scope, provides clear usage guidelines with explicit do-not-use alternatives, and concludes with what the tool returns. Every sentence adds essential information for tool selection and invocation.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), 100% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, regional scope, usage guidelines with specific alternatives, and output characteristics, making it fully adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool versus siblings.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool's regional specificity ('APNIC RIR - Asia-Pacific region') and the nature of the returned data ('complete object information in RPSL format', 'raw APNIC database records'), which helps the agent understand what kind of queries are appropriate and what to expect in results.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Perform raw WHOIS queries against the APNIC database to get complete object information in RPSL format.' It specifies the verb ('perform raw WHOIS queries'), resource ('APNIC database'), and output format ('RPSL format'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apnic_contact_card or apnic_validate_route_object.

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 ONLY when you need full object details or administrative data from APNIC') and when not to use it, naming three specific alternatives for different purposes (apnic_contact_card for contacts, apnic_validate_route_object for route validation, apnic_expand_as_set for AS-SET expansion). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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