mcp-infoblox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Returns all record types in the zone,' which adds some behavioral context about output scope. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (implied by 'max_results' but not explained). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output scope. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or constraints, but it's efficient overall.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits. While it states the purpose, it lacks depth needed for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output guidance, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances). According to the rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is added in the description.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'List all DNS records in a specific zone.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('DNS records'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_dns_records' by emphasizing 'all' records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_zones' or other get_* tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 usage by stating 'in a specific zone,' which suggests context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_dns_records' or 'get_zones,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This makes it adequate but with gaps.

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