Skip to main content
Glama

Proxy Pool Add

proxy_pool_add

Add a single proxy to the pool with optional credentials and session-template support. Use it to configure proxy pools for stealth browsing.

Instructions

Add ONE proxy to the pool.

url may include inline auth (http://user:pass@host:port); explicit username/password override. session_template is a provider-specific sticky-session pattern, e.g. 'user-session-{sid}-country-{cc}'.

Ex: proxy_pool_add('http://gw.proxy.com:8080', username='u123', password='p', country='US')

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "proxy_pool_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tagsNo
countryNo
passwordNo
usernameNo
session_templateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains inline-auth precedence and sticky-session templates, but omits duplicate handling, pool-side effects, validation behavior, and failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and then adds only the necessary auth/session details plus a concrete example. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description should clarify duplicate handling and tags semantics, and it does not.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters itself. It covers the tricky parts well: URL inline auth, explicit username/password override precedence, session_template format, and country via the example; however, `tags` is never explained and country format is only implied.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: "Add ONE proxy to the pool." The capitalized "ONE" subtly differentiates single-proxy addition from bulk-related siblings such as proxy_pool_load, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It does not say when to use this tool instead of proxy_pool_load, proxy_pool_remove, proxy_pool_list, or other proxy-pool siblings. The only implicit guidance is that this adds a single proxy rather than bulk-loading.

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