DoubleData MCP

Rotate ISP IPs

isp_rotate

Destructive

Replace specified ISP proxy IPs with new ones using the subscription's rotation allowance; old IPs stop working, and the returned rotation ID is used to poll rotation status.

Instructions

Replace specific ISP IPs with new ones. Uses the subscription's rotation allowance and the old IPs stop working. Poll isp_rotation_status with the returned rotation ID.

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>",
      "ips": "<ips>"
    },
    "name": "isp_rotate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ips`	Yes
`subscription_id`	Yes

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: old IPs stop working, a quota (rotation allowance) is consumed, and the call is asynchronous with a rotation ID to poll — all beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the required follow-up. No filler.

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 two-parameter destructive async tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what is destroyed, what quota is spent, and how to track completion via the returned rotation ID. Only the parameter-level detail is thin.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that 'ips' are the old addresses to be replaced; subscription_id is never explained, and there is no mention of the 1–100 item limit or IPv4 format expectations.

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 ('Replace specific ISP IPs with new ones') and implicitly scopes it against the sibling isp_rotation_status, which it names as the follow-up rather than the action. An agent can tell this is the mutation and the other is the poller.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it consumes the subscription's rotation allowance and requires polling isp_rotation_status with the returned rotation ID. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., when allowance is exhausted) or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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