ip_reputation_reverse_dns
Resolve the reverse-DNS (PTR) hostname(s) for an IP via free DNS-over-HTTPS. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address |
Japan Public Ledgers MCP
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool is 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free),' which covers safety and cost. However, it does not mention edge cases like what happens when no PTR record exists, potential rate limits, or the exact return format, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes useful context (free DNS-over-HTTPS, read-only, cost). Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the operation but does not explicitly state the return shape (e.g., list of hostnames, empty list on no record). Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives, making completeness slightly incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'ip' is described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address.' The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, only restating that the tool resolves for 'an IP.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.
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 specific action: 'Resolve the reverse-DNS (PTR) hostname(s) for an IP.' It distinguishes itself from sibling ip_reputation tools that do ASN lookup, classification, datacenter detection, or risk scoring by focusing specifically on reverse DNS via DNS-over-HTTPS.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: whenever a reverse-DNS lookup is needed. It provides clear context (via DNS-over-HTTPS, free) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the tool's name and purpose make the use case obvious relative to siblings.
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
B3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
Completeness4/5
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.