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 specifies the tool returns 'raw RIPE database records with all attributes for detailed analysis,' indicates it's for 'complete object information,' and mentions the query scope (domain, IP, ASN, etc.). While it doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, it provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 prohibitions. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical differentiation from sibling tools or clarifying behavioral aspects, with zero wasted text.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It clearly defines the tool's purpose, usage boundaries, and behavioral output. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it adequately compensates for the lack of annotations with detailed contextual guidance.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'domain name, IP address, ASN, or other identifier' in the context of the tool's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 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 performs 'raw WHOIS queries against the RIPE NCC database to get complete object information in RPSL format.' It specifies the exact verb ('perform raw WHOIS queries'), resource ('RIPE NCC database'), and output format ('RPSL format'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the specific RIR region (Europe/Middle East/Central Asia).

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 RIPE') and when not to use it, with three clear prohibitions and named alternatives for each (e.g., 'DO NOT use for contact information - use ripe_contact_card'). This comprehensive guidance helps the agent select the correct tool among siblings.

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