Skip to main content
Glama

LayerCall

by com.layercall

Score an IP address

score_ip

Risk-score an IPv4 or IPv6 address. Detects commercial VPNs (naming the provider where its own published list confirms it), proxies, Tor exit nodes and datacenter hosting, and returns geolocation, ASN and a 0-100 risk score with an allow/review/block verdict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. 8.8.8.8
strictnessNo0 lenient, 1 balanced (default), 2 strict, 3 paranoid. Moves the verdict thresholds only; the score is unchanged.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and provides meaningful detail: it discloses the detection categories (commercial VPNs with provider naming, proxies, Tor exit nodes, datacenter hosting) and the output contents (geolocation, ASN, 0-100 score, verdict). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only scoring tool this is a substantial disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause delivers relevant information about detection scope and return values.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists all key return fields and detection categories, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Combined with a clear and complete input schema, the tool is adequately specified.

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%: both 'ip' and 'strictness' are already described with examples and threshold semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Risk-score an IPv4 or IPv6 address.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the exact entity type (IP address) and the output (risk score, verdict), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 through the tool's entity-focused description and the naming pattern of sibling tools (score_device, score_user, score_domain). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any '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.

All LayerCall toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: phone, device, domain, IP, user (aggregate), agent, and email. The descriptions clearly separate individual signal scoring from the combined user scoring, and cryptographic verification is uniquely assigned to verify_agent. No two tools overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow the score_<object> pattern (score_device, score_domain, score_ip, score_user), but lookup_phone and verify_email/verify_agent deviate by using different verbs. The naming is still readable and logically grouped, though a more consistent prefix like score_phone and score_email would improve uniformity.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover the core signals for signup risk assessment without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well within the typical 3-15 range for a focused API.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the primary data points used in fraud/risk evaluation: phone, IP, email, domain, device, and a combined user score, plus a cryptographic agent verification for advanced scenarios. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations for this read-oriented risk assessment domain.

Resources