mcp-infoblox

get_next_available_ip

Retrieves available IP addresses from a network. Provide the network reference and optional count or exclusions to get next free IPs.

Instructions

Get the next available IP address(es) from a network. Use get_networks first to find the network reference.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "network_ref": "<network_ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_next_available_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network_ref`	Yes	Object reference of the network (e.g., network/ZG5z...)
`num`	No	Number of available IPs to retrieve
`exclude`	No	IP addresses to exclude from results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose details on what 'available' means (e.g., free vs. reserved), authentication needs, or side effects. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and simple parameters, description covers purpose and prerequisite. Lacks return format info (e.g., returns list of IP strings) and definition of 'available', but schema provides parameter details. Good but could be slightly more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds value only for network_ref by mentioning get_networks prerequisite. For num and exclude, description repeats schema info. Baseline 3 due to high coverage, with slight addition.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'next available IP address(es)', and specifies 'from a network'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on next available, and mentions prerequisite to use get_networks first.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides explicit guidance to use get_networks first to find network reference. It implies context for use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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