Geolocation of an IP address: country, city, ISP, coordinates, timezone.
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": {
"ip": "<ip>"
},
"name": "ip_geolocation"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the result set (country, city, ISP, coordinates, timezone), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about accuracy limits, missing-field behavior, or failure modes for invalid IPs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence with the resource first and the returned fields after; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient, though it omits an explicit verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input domain and the returned field set, which is what an agent needs to call it. Only minor gaps remain around error behavior and data source freshness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format examples or edge-case notes beyond restating that the input is an IP address; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the specific resource (IP address) and enumerates the geolocation data returned (country, city, ISP, coordinates, timezone), which clearly separates it from siblings like dns_lookup, whois, and ip_blacklist. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns geolocation for...') and never names a sibling, so it stops short of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over whois or ip_blacklist, no statement of prerequisites (API key, rate limits), and no conditions for when-not to use it. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.