devutils-mcp-server

cidr_calculate

Compute network address, broadcast address, host range, and total hosts from an IPv4 CIDR notation like 192.168.1.0/24. Solve subnetting queries instantly.

Instructions

Calculate network details from a CIDR notation (e.g., '192.168.1.0/24'). Returns network address, broadcast, host range, and host count.

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": {
      "cidr": "<cidr>"
    },
    "name": "cidr_calculate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cidr`	Yes	IPv4 CIDR notation (e.g., '192.168.1.0/24', '10.0.0.0/8')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (network address, broadcast, host range, host count) but does not specify error behavior for invalid input or other behavioral traits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes an example. Every word serves a purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple calculation tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers input and output. It lists the returned fields, though it could be improved by specifying the output structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'cidr' has full schema description coverage (100%), and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate network details from a CIDR notation.' It provides an example and lists the returned information, distinguishing it from siblings like ip_validate.

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?

The description implies usage for CIDR calculations but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ip_validate). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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