whois_ipRetrieve IP network allocation details—network name, CIDR, and country—using RDAP.
IP network allocation data via RDAP (network name, CIDR, country).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, safe, and open-world, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by naming RDAP and the exact data fields returned, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid IPs, rate limits, or partial results. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the added value is modest but sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that conveys the data source and key output fields with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parenthetical detail efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about acceptable IP formats, but the schema and annotations cover most operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one 'ip' string parameter with 0% coverage, and the description does not clarify whether IPv4, IPv6, or CIDR blocks are accepted. The parameter name itself is mostly self-explanatory, and the description's mention of IP network allocation data implies an IP address query, but explicit format guidance would strengthen it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (IP network allocation data) and the data source (RDAP), listing concrete returned fields such as network name, CIDR, and country. It differentiates the tool from siblings like whois_domain and geoip, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lookup' or 'retrieve'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when IP network allocation details are needed, and the RDAP mention helps distinguish it from geolocation or BGP tools. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, leaving the agent to infer from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.