DoubleData MCP

Buy ISP proxies

isp_order

Destructive

Purchase an approved quoted ISP package, charge the wallet, and poll order status until the order completes.

Instructions

Purchase a quoted ISP package. This charges the wallet. Only call after the user explicitly approved the quoted price; set confirm_purchase to true. Poll isp_order_status until the order completes.

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": {
      "quote_id": "<quote_id>",
      "confirm_purchase": "<confirm_purchase>"
    },
    "name": "isp_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quote_id`	Yes
`confirm_purchase`	Yes	Must be true; confirms the user approved the charge.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial specifics — that it charges the wallet and must not run without explicit user approval. It does not address duplicate-charge risk despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one behavioral 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the money-moving fact, then the gate, then the follow-up. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the money and approval semantics and the post-call workflow well. It stops short of saying what the response contains (e.g., an order identifier to poll with), which an agent may need to invoke isp_order_status correctly.

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 50%, and quote_id has no schema description at all, but 'quoted ISP package' conveys that quote_id must reference a prior quote. For confirm_purchase the description reinforces the schema's meaning by tying it to user approval of the charge, not just a boolean flag.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Purchase a quoted ISP package') that clearly distinguishes it from isp_quote and isp_proxies. The quoted-package framing tells an agent exactly which upstream artifact this consumes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only call after the user explicitly approved the quoted price'), a required argument value, and a named follow-up tool ('Poll isp_order_status until the order completes'). Both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are spelled out rather than inferred.

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