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 the tool's behavior: it returns 'raw LACNIC database records with all attributes for detailed analysis' and 'complete object information in RPSL format.' It also mentions the regional specificity ('LACNIC RIR (Latin America and Caribbean region)'). However, it doesn't cover potential error cases, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage guidelines and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value—distinguishing from siblings, specifying regional scope, and describing output format—with zero wasted words.

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 (WHOIS querying), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and output behavior well. However, it doesn't address potential errors or operational constraints (e.g., rate limits), which would be helpful for a network tool. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'raw LACNIC database records' which aligns with the query parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Perform raw WHOIS queries against the LACNIC database to get complete object information in RPSL format.' It specifies the verb ('perform raw WHOIS queries'), resource ('LACNIC database'), and format ('RPSL format'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'lacnic_contact_card' for contact information.

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 LACNIC.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'DO NOT use for contact information - use lacnic_contact_card for abuse, NOC, admin, or tech contacts.' This clearly differentiates it from alternatives.

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