mcp-infoblox

create_fixed_address

Create a DHCP reservation in Infoblox to assign a fixed IP address to a client identified by its MAC address.

Instructions

Create a DHCP fixed address (reservation) in Infoblox

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": {
      "ipv4addr": "<ipv4addr>",
      "mac": "<mac>"
    },
    "name": "create_fixed_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ipv4addr`	Yes	IPv4 address to reserve
`mac`	Yes	MAC address of the client (e.g., 00:11:22:33:44:55)
`name`	No	Name for the fixed address
`comment`	No	Description
`network_view`	No	Network view
`match_client`	No	Client matching method	MAC_ADDRESS
`options`	No	DHCP options

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or error behavior, leaving the agent uninformed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information, but could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, validation, or success/failure indicators, leaving significant gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'DHCP fixed address (reservation) in Infoblox', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_dhcp_range or create_network.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for use.

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