net-mcp

Supernet Aggregate

supernet_aggregate

Aggregate a list of IP prefixes into the smallest covering supernet, summarizing contiguous subnets for route announcements.

Instructions

Try to aggregate a list of IP prefixes into a supernet.

Given contiguous subnets, returns the smallest covering supernet. Useful for summarizing route announcements.

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": {
      "prefixes": "<prefixes>"
    },
    "name": "supernet_aggregate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefixes`	Yes	Comma-separated list of IP prefixes to aggregate (e.g. '10.0.0.0/25,10.0.0.128/25')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	Yes
`prefixes`	Yes
`supernet`	Yes
`aggregatable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—returning the smallest covering supernet—and implies the input requirement of contiguity. However, it does not explain behavior on non-contiguous, invalid, or mixed-version prefixes, nor any failure modes beyond the tentative word 'Try.'

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, output, input condition, and use case in just two sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter pure computation tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and what it returns. The main gap is explicit handling of edge cases, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the need for additional detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already includes the comma-separated format and an example. The tool description adds the 'contiguous subnets' precondition but does not substantially enhance understanding of the prefixes parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (aggregate IP prefixes) and the resource (a list of prefixes), with a specific outcome: 'returns the smallest covering supernet.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like subnet_split, but the core 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides useful context: it is for 'summarizing route announcements' and expects 'contiguous subnets.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as prefix_overlap or subnet_split, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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