mcp-infoblox

get_networks

Search and list networks in Infoblox IPAM with details like address, comment, view, and utilization. Supports CIDR, regex, and filtering by network view.

Instructions

Search and list networks in Infoblox IPAM. Returns network address, comment, view, and utilization info.

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_networks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Network in CIDR notation to search for (e.g., 10.0.0.0/24). Supports regex.
`network_view`	No	Network view to filter by
`comment`	No	Comment to search for (regex)
`max_results`	No	Maximum results to return
`return_fields`	No	Comma-separated return fields

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. For a search tool, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return info. No unnecessary words. Ideal conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple search tool, but lacks details on regex behavior, sorting, or interpretation of utilization info. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more context would improve usability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions (e.g., CIDR notation, regex support, max_results default).

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 tool searches and lists networks in Infoblox IPAM, and specifies the returned information (network address, comment, view, utilization info). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_details and get_network_views.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_network_details, get_network_views). The description implies searching and listing, but does not clarify when one would choose this over similar search tools.

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