Classifies an HTTP request by URL and method to choose direct, datacenter, or residential proxy routing, reducing paid bandwidth costs for heavy assets and fonts.
Determines whether an HTTP request should use residential, datacenter, or direct connection to optimize cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The destination URL | |
| method | No | HTTP method (GET, POST, etc.) | GET |
| force_residential | No | Whether to force residential IP tier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never resolves the central ambiguity of whether it merely returns a routing decision or actually performs the request, nor does it state side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight concision.
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?
Three parameters are fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description never explains what the tool returns (a tier label, a decision object, a routed request?) or how the decision is meant to be consumed. For a decision-producing tool that is a material 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, method, and force_residential; the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the three tiers adds only loose context for the force_residential override and nothing for the other parameters.
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?
States a specific verb (determines) and resource (HTTP request routing tier), and enumerates the three outcomes (residential, datacenter, direct) with the optimization goal. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not name or contrast itself against any sibling.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'to optimize cost' hints at the intent but leaves the agent to infer when this should be called versus just issuing the request directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.