Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umbra

umbra

by lxchx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Proxy Pool Load

proxy_pool_load

Bulk-load proxies into a managed pool from inline text or files in lines, JSON, or CSV formats, and select a rotation strategy for proxy routing.

Instructions

Bulk-load proxies into the pool.

format='lines': one URL per line (http://user:pass@host:port[#country=US,tags=a|b]) format='json': list of {url, username?, password?, country?, tags?, session_template?} OR full pool dict from proxy_pool_export. format='csv': header w/ columns url, username, password, country, tags, session_template data may be inline text OR a file path (auto-detected by existence).

rotation strategies: round_robin (default), random, least_used, best_health, sticky_browser (same browser_id always gets same entry).

Ex: proxy_pool_load(data='http://u:p@gw1:8080\nhttp://u:p@gw2:8080') Ex: proxy_pool_load(data='/path/to/proxies.csv', format='csv')

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "proxy_pool_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
formatNolines
replaceNo
rotationNoround_robin

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose real behavior: file-path auto-detection for `data`, per-format payload shapes, and the sticky_browser routing rule. However, for a mutation tool it never says what happens to existing pool entries (the `replace` flag is never mentioned), whether duplicate URLs are merged or rejected, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a terse per-format spec, followed by worked examples. Nearly every line earns its place, though the rotation list partially restates the enum values already in the schema.

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 needn't be explained, and the payload formats are covered thoroughly. But a 4-parameter bulk-mutation tool with zero annotations should at minimum document `replace` and duplicate-handling; those omissions leave an agent unable to predict the effect on an existing pool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and mostly does: it fully specifies the `format` values and their syntax, explains that `data` is inline text or a path auto-detected by existence, and expands the `rotation` enum with concrete meaning for sticky_browser. The one real gap is `replace`, which is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Bulk-load proxies into the pool") with the word "bulk" implicitly distinguishing it from the singular proxy_pool_add sibling. Clear enough to route on, though it never names the alternative tool explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the detailed format spec and by the mention that a JSON payload can be a pool dict from proxy_pool_export, which gives one concrete workflow. But there is no statement of when to prefer proxy_pool_add vs this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. does the pool need to be empty?), and no exclusions.

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