Create multiple custom proxy resources in a single batch from an items array, requiring host and port for each entry; credentials are not returned.
Create multiple custom proxy resources from an items array. Each item needs host and port. Credentials are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Proxy objects; each item needs host and port. Also accepts proxies or proxyList |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Input schema / properties / items / items / properties / password / descriptionPrevious value: -"Write-only; never returned"New value: +"Write-only"Input schema / properties / items / items / properties / protocol / descriptionPrevious value: -"SOCKS5, HTTP, or HTTPS; omitted create defaults to SOCKS5"New value: +"SOCKS5, HTTP or HTTPS; defaults to SOCKS5 when creating"Input schema / properties / items / items / properties / username / descriptionPrevious value: -"Write-only; never returned"New value: +"Write-only"v2026.8.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Credentials are never returned' is useful but duplicates the schema's 'Write-only' note on username/password, and the critical batch traits — partial-failure behavior, atomicity, rate limits, auth requirements — are unstated.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely repeats schema content, which costs it a perfect score.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and batch semantics to convey, the description should explain what a successful call returns (e.g., created proxy IDs) and what happens on partial failure. Neither is addressed.
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 baseline is 3. The description restates the host/port requirement already documented in the schema and adds nothing about the documented aliases ('proxies'/'proxyList') or protocol/IP-version options.
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 and resource: 'Create multiple custom proxy resources from an items array'. The word 'multiple' implicitly distinguishes it from nex_proxy_create, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this batch tool versus nex_proxy_create (single) or nex_proxy_import. An agent must infer the choice from the word 'multiple' alone; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.