get_security
Read-onlyIdempotent
The caller's connection security: TLS version/cipher, HTTP protocol, TCP RTT and bot-detection signals.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
IP Address API
by app.ip
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds details on what specific security signals are returned, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single sentence that efficiently lists the key security attributes without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent of what information will be returned. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline for no parameters is 4. The description is sufficient.
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 retrieves the caller's connection security details, listing specific fields (TLS version/cipher, HTTP protocol, TCP RTT, bot-detection signals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ip or get_user_agent by focusing on security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the clear purpose and sibling names imply it is for security-related queries. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to use it for security information.
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.