Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webshare-mcp

webshare-mcp

by jimmyallinai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

webshare_list_replacements

Retrieves IP replacement history and current statuses, including preview records, so you can review past proxy changes and verify replacement outcomes.

Instructions

查看换 IP 记录与状态（含预演记录）。

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": "webshare_list_replacements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies read-only through '查看' and adds one useful detail (that dry-run/rehearsal records are included), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, retention window, or what the status values mean.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key scope detail (dry-run records included) is right there. It is terse to the point of being under-informative, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, everything an agent knows must come from this one sentence. It does not describe the shape of returned records (IP, timestamp, status fields), how many are returned, or in what order, leaving the agent unable to anticipate results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% for an empty object, so no gap exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb ('查看' / view) and a resource ('换 IP 记录与状态'), so the general purpose is inferable. However it never names the sibling it differs from, e.g. webshare_replace_proxy, which performs replacements rather than listing them, so an agent must guess how it splits from that tool.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus webshare_replace_proxy, webshare_list_proxies, or webshare_refresh_proxies. The inclusion of dry-run records is mentioned, but that is a scope note rather than usage guidance; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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