DoubleData MCP

Create proxy credential

create_credential

Create a proxy credential for residential, datacenter, or mobile traffic using wallet balance or package GB, and return connection details with the password masked unless revealed.

Instructions

Create a new proxy credential (username/password) for residential, datacenter or mobile traffic. Requires wallet balance or package GB for that product. Returns connection details; the password is masked unless reveal_password is true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_credential"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Display name, up to 24 characters, e.g. the project or agent using it.
`proxy_type`	No		residential
`reveal_password`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a billing prerequisite (wallet balance or package GB) and the output-side masking rule where the password is hidden unless reveal_password is true. It does not say what happens to the credential if billing is insufficient, leaving a small gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the precondition, then the return behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, billing precondition, and the shape of the result (connection details with a masked password). It leaves slight ambiguity about failure modes when balance or package GB is missing, but nothing essential to invoking the call is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% — just `name` is documented in the schema — so the description must carry weight, and it does: "residential, datacenter or mobile traffic" explains what proxy_type selects, and the masking sentence defines the effect of reveal_password rather than merely restating it. Only the credential-name constraint is left entirely to the schema, which is appropriate since it is already described there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new proxy credential") and specifies the payload shape (username/password) plus the supported traffic categories. It is easy to distinguish from read-side siblings such as get_credential and list_credentials, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies a concrete precondition for use: "Requires wallet balance or package GB for that product," which tells the agent when a call will succeed versus fail. It lacks explicit exclusions or routing advice toward alternatives like isp_order, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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