mcp-infoblox

get_dhcp_ranges

List DHCP ranges (scopes) from Infoblox, with optional filtering by network CIDR, network view, and result limit, for IPAM management.

Instructions

List DHCP ranges (scopes) in Infoblox

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_dhcp_ranges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Network in CIDR to filter by
`network_view`	No	Network view
`max_results`	No	Maximum results

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'List' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, sorted, or filtered by default. No mention of performance or system impact.

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 phrase, extremely concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections. It is efficient but minimal.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what data is returned (e.g., range names, subnets, properties). It does not, leaving the agent without critical context about the tool's output.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List), the resource (DHCP ranges/scopes), and the system (Infoblox). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that deal with other resources like networks or DNS records.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_networks or get_dhcp_leases. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for appropriate use.

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