Skip to main content
Glama
ilien-dev

svipall

by ilien-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

web_route

Route a domain and its subdomains through a proxy or pool to bypass fingerprinting walls or country locks; test exits for liveness, latency, and DNS leaks.

Instructions

Send one domain (subdomains inherit) through a proxy from now on, or through a pool with proxies and countries; remove drops the route, no arguments lists routes, check=true tests the exits for liveness, latency and DNS leak. Use when a fingerprinting wall never yields at any tier, or a site is locked to a country. Give country so the browser's timezone and language match the exit.web_status shows each exit's health per domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkNoTest the exits configured for `domain` instead of changing them: did each answer, how fast, any DNS leak or scheme problem.
proxyNoProxy URL, e.g. "socks5h://user:pass@host:1080" (socks5h resolves DNS at the exit).
domainNoThe domain to route; subdomains inherit. Omit everything to list the routes.
removeNoRemove the route for `domain`.
countryNoISO country the proxy exits from, e.g. "DE", so the browser announces a matching timezone and language. Declared, never detected: that would need a geolocation service.
proxiesNoSeveral exits instead of one: the domain sticks to the first that works and moves on when that one is blocked twice.
check_urlNoThe URL a `check` fetches through each exit. Default: a small neutral page.
countriesNoISO country of each entry in `proxies`, by position; `country` covers the rest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds key behavioral context: routing persists 'from now on,' subdomains inherit, remove drops the route, no arguments lists routes, and check tests exits for liveness, latency, and DNS leak. It also explains that country aligns browser timezone and language with the exit, which is valuable operational detail beyond the annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded and the description is dense with useful mode and usage information. It is a long, semicolon-heavy paragraph with some repetition of schema details, but it remains readable and mostly earns its place.

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?

For an eight-parameter routing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, usage conditions, and the web_status alternative. It does not explain the return format for listing or check operations, but the rich schema descriptions and annotations compensate for much of that gap.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description restates some roles, such as proxies, countries, remove, and check, but adds little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 states a specific action: route one domain through a proxy or pool, with clear modes for remove, list, and check. It distinguishes those modes and points to web_status for health, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: when a fingerprinting wall never yields at any tier, or when a site is locked to a country. It does not provide when-not guidance or name an alternative tool beyond web_status for health monitoring.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools