Removes a whitelisted IP address using its ID, so you can revoke proxy access for an address previously listed via list_whitelist_ips or add_whitelist_ip.
Remove an address from the whitelist, by the id list_whitelist_ips or add_whitelist_ip gave.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data and the bar for the description is lower. The description adds the ID provenance but nothing about irreversibility, whether removal immediately affects live proxy traffic, or error behavior for unknown ids.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action is stated first and the input requirement second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and destructive semantics are covered by annotations. The only meaningful omission is whether the removal is reversible and whether it takes effect immediately, which matters for a destructive one-param tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does meaningfully by telling the agent the required ip_id is the identifier returned by list_whitelist_ips or add_whitelist_ip. It still doesn't state the format of the id or what happens if a stale id is supplied.
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 ('Remove an address from the whitelist') and even identifies where the identifier comes from, which implicitly separates it from the sibling tools list_whitelist_ips and add_whitelist_ip. It stops just short of an explicit 'unlike add_whitelist_ip, this...' contrast, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Gives a concrete precondition for invocation: the ip_id must come from list_whitelist_ips or add_whitelist_ip, which routes the agent to the right sibling to obtain input. It does not state any when-not-to-use case or confirm that the removal is immediate, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.