Skip to main content
Glama
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold

Test a proxy

test_proxy

Verifies a proxy by fetching the exit IP through it as an HTTP proxy and records the test result.

Instructions

Test a proxy. Required API key scope: accounts:write. POST /proxies/{id}/test Fetches the exit IP through the proxy (always as an HTTP proxy) and records the result.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "test_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent write). The description adds real context beyond them: the required API key scope (accounts:write), the underlying POST /proxies/{id}/test route, the fact that the connection is always made as an HTTP proxy regardless of proxy type, and that the result is persisted — useful side-effect disclosure for an operation that looks like a read but mutates state.

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?

Front-loaded name plus three short lines covering scope, endpoint, and behavior; nothing is wasted. The terse endpoint line is somewhat machine-generated in feel but still informative.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers auth scope, transport behavior, and the persisted result. The main residual gap is that it doesn't describe what a test result contains (exit IP value, success/failure shape), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the burden. The description only confirms it lives in the path ({id}); it adds no semantics about what kind of proxy identifier is expected.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Test a proxy") and adds what the test actually does: fetches the exit IP through the proxy as an HTTP proxy and records the result. This distinguishes it from create_proxy/update_proxy/delete_proxy and list_proxies, though the differentiation is implicit rather than naming siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'fetches the exit IP' phrasing, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus create_proxy/update_proxy or get_accounts_proxy_health, and no prerequisites beyond the scope line.

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