bulk_ip_lookupLook up country, city, ISP, organization and coordinates for up to 50 IP addresses in a single request. Much faster and far kinder to the rate limit than calling ip_lookup in a loop — always prefer this when you have more than a couple of addresses (e.g. a list from access logs or a firewall export).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | Yes | Array of 1-50 public IPv4/IPv6 addresses |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple mutation statement by revealing performance characteristics (much faster, kinder to rate limits), the batch limit of 50, and the returned data fields. It does not mention error handling for invalid IPs, but for a lookup tool this is sufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then adds rationale and examples. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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 straightforward lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the input format, the use cases, and the return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.
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?
The schema fully describes the single 'ips' parameter with a clear description ('Array of 1-50 public IPv4/IPv6 addresses'), so the description does not need to add more. The description implicitly references the parameter but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool looks up country, city, ISP, organization, and coordinates for up to 50 IP addresses in a single request. It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('IP addresses'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ip_lookup' by explicitly mentioning batching.
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?
The description explicitly says to prefer this tool over ip_lookup when handling more than a couple of addresses, and provides concrete use cases like access logs or firewall exports. It also explains performance and rate-limit benefits, making the decision of when to use it versus alternatives clear.
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.