Calculate IPv4/IPv6 subnet details from CIDR notation, including network, broadcast, netmask, host range, and supernet. Compare comma-separated CIDRs to detect overlaps.
Calculate IPv4/IPv6 subnet details from CIDR notation — network address, broadcast, netmask, usable host range, supernet. Pass multiple CIDRs comma-separated to detect overlaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cidr | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed result fields and the multi-CIDR overlap behavior, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and then add the multi-CIDR behavior. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.
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 stateless subnet calculator with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input format and lists the main outputs. It could be strengthened with a concrete CIDR example or a note about IPv4/IPv6 formatting, but nothing critical is missing.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'cidr' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying 'CIDR notation' and explaining that multiple CIDRs can be passed comma-separated, adding meaningful input semantics beyond the bare string type.
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 gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('IPv4/IPv6 subnet details from CIDR notation'), and enumerates the outputs it returns: network address, broadcast, netmask, usable host range, and supernet. It also describes the multi-CIDR overlap-detection use case, making the tool's scope unambiguous among the network-oriented siblings.
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 description implies usage for subnet calculations and explicitly mentions passing multiple CIDRs to detect overlaps, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With no directly equivalent sibling, the implied usage is adequate but not rich.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.