WHOIS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining what the tool does: 'Automatically resolves organization details and extracts abuse mailboxes, NOC contacts, phone numbers, and administrative information from RIPE database.' It specifies the return format ('structured contact data with clear categorization') and use cases, though it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 with the key purpose ('PREFERRED TOOL for retrieving contact information'). Most sentences add value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating contact purposes). It could be slightly more concise but remains well-structured for agent comprehension.

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, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return format. The output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's role among 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 all three parameters (ip, asn, org) with good descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but it does reinforce that inputs can be 'IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations.' 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 retrieves contact information for IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations from the RIPE NCC database, specifying it's for the Europe/Middle East/Central Asia region. It distinguishes from siblings by being 'PREFERRED TOOL for retrieving contact information' and explicitly mentions it's for the RIPE RIR, unlike other regional contact cards like afrinic_contact_card or apnic_contact_card.

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: 'when you need to CONTACT someone about: abuse reports, security incidents, network issues, or administrative matters.' It lists specific keywords and use cases (incident response, network troubleshooting, compliance reporting), and the 'PREFERRED TOOL' designation helps differentiate it from alternative tools like ripe_whois_query.

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