get_location
Read-onlyIdempotent
Approximate geolocation of the caller's IP: city, region, country, coordinates, continent and EU flag.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
IP Address API
by app.ip
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying output fields and the word 'approximate', indicating precision limitations. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention caveats like VPN dependencies.
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?
Single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear comma-separated list of output fields. No redundancy or excess.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description adequately covers the output fields and the fact that it requires no input. It could mention coordinate format or accuracy, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per the rule '0 params = baseline 4', the description does not need to add parameter info. The description indirectly clarifies no input is needed.
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 returns approximate geolocation from the caller's IP, listing specific fields (city, region, country, coordinates, continent, EU flag). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ip (returns IP) and get_whereami (likely includes timezone) by focusing purely on location.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_whereami). The description does not provide context for selection or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a unique aspect of the caller's request or IP information (ASN, headers, IP, location, security, timezone, user agent, coordinates) with no overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a clear noun (e.g., get_asn, get_headers), making naming predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server provides a focused set of self-service IP and request data operations without being sparse or bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all typical aspects of a caller's IP/request information (IP, location, timezone, security, headers, user agent, ASN, coordinates) with no obvious gaps.