DoubleData MCP

Set ISP IP authorization

isp_set_ip_authorization

Idempotent

Authorize one public IPv4 address to use a subscription's proxies without a password, or remove that authorization by setting remove to true.

Instructions

Allow one public IPv4 address to use the subscription's proxies without a password, or remove it with remove: 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": {
      "subscription_id": "<subscription_id>"
    },
    "name": "isp_set_ip_authorization"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`remove`	No
`subscription_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting the 'one public IPv4' single-slot constraint and the passwordless-proxy effect, but it does not say whether an existing authorization is replaced or what happens on conflict.

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 front-loaded sentence that covers both the primary action and the removal variant with no wasted wording.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers both modes and the key constraint, and annotations handle safety. It still leaves gaps around replacement semantics and error/conflict behavior that an agent might want before calling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it clarifies that ip is a single public IPv4 and that remove: true triggers deletion. subscription_id is left implicit but is self-evident from the name and required status.

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?

States a specific verb (allow/authorize) and resource (one public IPv4 for the subscription's proxies), plus the inverse removal mode. It is clearly distinct from the sibling isp_get_ip_authorization by being the write counterpart, though it does not name 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description conveys the two modes (authorize by default, remove with remove: true), which is useful usage context. However, it gives no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid subscription) and no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance beyond the get/set split implied by the name.

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