DoubleData MCP

Get ISP IP authorization

isp_get_ip_authorization

Read-only

Retrieve the public IPv4 address authorized to use a subscription's ISP proxies without a password.

Instructions

Show which public IPv4 address may use the subscription's proxies without a password.

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": {
      "subscription_id": "<subscription_id>"
    },
    "name": "isp_get_ip_authorization"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subscription_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantics beyond that — that authorization means password-less proxy use by a single public IPv4 address — but says nothing about behavior when no authorization exists or how many addresses can be returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing usage and return-value context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description need not explain return shape in detail. Still, it never states whether zero, one, or many addresses can come back, nor how this relates to setting the authorization, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding what to do with the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the sole parameter subscription_id is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'the subscription's proxies' weakly ties the parameter to a subscription, but it does not explain the UUID format, where to obtain the ID, or what happens with an unknown ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('which public IPv4 address may use the subscription's proxies without a password'), which is far more informative than the tautological title. It implicitly contrasts with isp_set_ip_authorization by being the read side, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the paired setter (isp_set_ip_authorization) or to nearby diagnostics like check_exit_ip. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a read counterpart to the set operation.

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