WHOIS MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a validation/checking tool (implies read-only, non-destructive), automatically handles IPv4/IPv6 detection, returns a simple exists/not-found status, and is optimized for speed and accuracy compared to raw WHOIS parsing. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling details.

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 primary purpose and usage context. The keyword list adds some redundancy but helps with searchability. It could be slightly more concise by integrating keywords more naturally, but overall it's efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 (validation with two parameters), no annotations, but with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors, though it could benefit from more explicit details on output format or error cases, which the output schema may address.

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 fully documents both parameters (prefix and origin_asn). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the validation purpose and mentioning automatic IPv4/IPv6 detection, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: validating route object registration in the RIPE NCC database for a prefix-ASN pair. It specifies the region (Europe/Middle East/Central Asia) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like arin_validate_route_object by explicitly mentioning RIPE, making it easy to differentiate.

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 explicitly states this is the 'PREFERRED TOOL' for validating route objects in RIPE and provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you need to CHECK, VERIFY, or VALIDATE if a route object exists for a prefix-ASN pair in RIPE.' It also contrasts with alternatives by noting it's 'Much faster and more accurate than parsing raw WHOIS data for route validation in RIPE database.'

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