Retrieve the current requester's public IP address to confirm it before adding it to a Webshare IP whitelist.
查询当前请求方的公网 IP（加白名单前确认用）。
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_whatsmyip"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. '查询' implies a read-only lookup and the zero-parameter shape reinforces that this mutates nothing, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases such as proxies/NAT. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence plus a short purpose parenthetical, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope or the usage trigger.
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?
For a trivial zero-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to reach for it. It could mention the return form (a single IP string) and whether it reflects the proxy or direct connection, which is a minor remaining gap.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-param schema applies. The description correctly implies the implicit input is the caller's own request context.
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 states a specific verb and resource: query the current requester's public IP, scoped to the caller rather than a general IP list. That scope distinguishes it implicitly from webshare_list_ip_authorizations, though it never names the sibling outright.
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 parenthetical '加白名单前确认用' gives a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to the IP-whitelisting workflow (add_ip_authorization). It gives clear context but no explicit when-not or named alternative, keeping it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.