DoubleData MCP

ISP rotation status

isp_rotation_status

Read-only

Check a rotation’s progress and retrieve its replacement IPs by rotation ID to verify IP changes.

Instructions

Check a rotation's progress and the replacement IPs.

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": {
      "rotation_id": "<rotation_id>"
    },
    "name": "isp_rotation_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rotation_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 that the response includes replacement IPs, which is genuine behavioral value, but it says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, or failure modes of a rotation that a caller would need when checking progress repeatedly.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing could be cut without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey the shape of the return value; it names the two things returned (progress and replacement IPs) but not the possible progress states or their fields. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is adequate but thin, and the loose end of where rotation_id comes from is unaddressed.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining rotation_id, and it does not — there is no statement that it is the identifier returned when a rotation was initiated. The uuid format makes the intent inferable from the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond the name.

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?

"Check a rotation's progress and the replacement IPs" gives a specific verb (check) plus the two things it operates on (rotation progress, replacement IPs), which cleanly separates it from the sibling isp_rotate that initiates a rotation. It stops short of naming that sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word "progress" implies this is a polling tool called after a rotation is started, so usage is inferable. However, it never states when to call it versus isp_rotate or isp_order_status, nor whether to poll repeatedly until completion or what a terminal state looks like.

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