asn_lookupResolve an Autonomous System by IP address, AS number, or organization name. Returns the AS number, network name, holder, description, RIR and whether the AS is currently announced. Use it to answer 'which network is this IP on', 'who is AS15169', or to find the ASNs belonging to a company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | An IP (8.8.8.8), an AS number (AS15169 or 15169), or an org name (google) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (AS number, network name, holder, description, RIR, announced status) and implies a read-only lookup. It does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, but the nature of a lookup is well conveyed.
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?
Two concise sentences. The first states the function and outputs; the second gives concrete use cases. No filler words, every sentence earns its place.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description lists all essential return fields. The examples cover the three query types. For a single-parameter lookup tool, this description is complete and self-sufficient.
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 parameter description already explains the accepted formats (IP, ASN, org name). The description adds example queries but no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve an Autonomous System by IP address, AS number, or organization name.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ip_lookup or whois_domain by focusing on AS-level data and the specific output fields. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Explicit usage examples are provided: 'which network is this IP on', 'who is AS15169', 'find the ASNs belonging to a company.' This clearly signals when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. IP lookup, ASN, reverse DNS, blacklist, and VPN/proxy checks are clearly differentiated. Even the email tools focus on different mechanisms (auth vs breach).
All tools use consistent lower_snake_case, mostly following the <object>_<action> pattern. The few exceptions like my_ip and server_info still fit the overall style. There is no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb usage.
Fifteen tools is a well-scoped set for a comprehensive IP intelligence service. Each tool covers a unique capability without redundancy, and the count never feels bloated.
The surface covers the full lifecycle of IP investigation: lookups, reputation checks, batch processing, domain/DNS/email intelligence, and website security audits. Missing operations like SSL certificate checks are nice-to-have but not essential. The server_info tool also helps users discover capabilities.