mcp-infoblox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields (network address, comment, view, utilization info) and implies a search/list operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination (though 'max_results' hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient, warranting a score of 2.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key return information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search and list networks') and avoids unnecessary details, earning a score of 5 for optimal conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, more guidance on results and limitations would improve completeness, resulting in a score of 3.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by implying regex support for 'network' and 'comment' and listing return fields, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search and list networks in Infoblox IPAM.' It specifies the verb ('search and list'), resource ('networks'), and system context ('Infoblox IPAM'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_details' or 'search_ip_addresses,' which limits its score to 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_network_details' (for detailed info) or 'search_ip_addresses' (for IP-specific searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information results in a score of 2.

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