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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists DNS views, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no views exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List DNS views configured in Infoblox') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'DNS view name to search for'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how the search works (e.g., exact match, partial match) or default behavior when the parameter is omitted. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('DNS views configured in Infoblox'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_views' or 'get_zones', which might also list views of different resource types, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_network_views' and 'get_zones' that might serve similar listing purposes for different resources, there's no indication of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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