Tengu

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tor_new_identity

Request a new Tor circuit to change your IP address and online identity. Sends the NEWNYM signal to the Tor control port, giving you a fresh relay path for anonymous browsing.

Instructions

Request a new Tor circuit via the control port (NEWNYM signal).

Args: control_port: Tor control port (default 9051) control_password: Tor control password (from torrc)

Returns: Dictionary with success status and message.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tor_new_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`control_port`	No
`control_password`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the need for a control port and password, implying authentication requirements, and states the return format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like disrupting existing circuits or requiring Tor to be running with the control port enabled.

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?

The description is well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though the opening sentence could be slightly more informative.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its input and output. However, it omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., Tor must be running, control port open) and the impact on existing connections, which would be useful for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that control_port is the Tor control port and control_password comes from torrc. However, the schema already provides defaults, and the added value is minimal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool requests a new Tor circuit via the NEWNYM signal, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'rotate_identity', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tor_check' or 'rotate_identity'. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for invoking it.

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

Deploy Server