IP geolocation plus ASN/ISP intel for any public IPv4 or IPv6 address: country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, org, AS number/name. [PAID: $0.015 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address to locate (e.g. 1.1.1.1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falseInput schema / properties / ipAdded value: +{
+ "description": "IPv4 or IPv6 address to locate (e.g. 1.1.1.1)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / promptRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Input prompt for this service.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "prompt"
-]New value: +[
+ "ip"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one high-value trait: the pay-per-call cost ($0.015 USDC via x402), which affects agent invocation. However, it omits error behavior for invalid/private IPs, latency/rate limits, and whether results are cached — gaps that matter for an unannotated network tool.
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?
A single densely packed sentence that front-loads the capability and ends with the cost in a bracketed tag. No filler; the return-field enumeration is the substance rather than padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (geography, network metadata, ASN/ISP), which is exactly what an agent needs to judge fitness. It stops short of describing error/empty responses or the payment flow mechanics required to actually complete a call.
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 there is a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by qualifying the accepted input as 'public' IPv4/IPv6, adding a real constraint on valid values beyond the schema's plain 'IPv4 or IPv6 address' example.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('IP geolocation plus ASN/ISP intel') with a precise input scope ('any public IPv4 or IPv6 address') and enumerates the output domain (country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, org, ASN). This clearly separates it from siblings like liminal-dns-lookup-xvSPfA and liminal-stack-intel-7g6WFg without needing the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource description, and the word 'public' hints that private/reserved addresses are out of scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the liminal-* siblings. An agent must infer the routing decision.
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.