Check an IP address against AbuseIPDB reports to determine if it has been reported for abuse and assess access risk.
Check if an IP address has been reported for abuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| maxAgeInDays | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing further: no mention that this is a third-party abuse-report database, no rate-limit or API-key/quota notes, no indication of what confidence score or report count comes back.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
No output schema and no parameter documentation means the description is the only place to explain what a result looks like and how the lookback window or credentials work — and it covers none of that. For an external, key-required reputation lookup this is thin.
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 coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The 'ip' parameter semantics are implied, but 'maxAgeInDays' (the report lookback window) and 'api_key' (an auth parameter) are completely undocumented anywhere — a real gap for an open-world external API call.
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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an IP address') and states the question it answers: has this IP been reported for abuse. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as virustotal_scan_ip, ip_lookup, or abuseipdb_blacklist, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling abuseipdb_report_ip (the write counterpart) or versus other IP-reputation tools (virustotal_scan_ip, ipinfo_lookup, ip_lookup). Usage is only implied by the verb 'check'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.