Look up community IP reputation from Sectora Shield WAF network. Shows if an IP has been reported for attacks. Accepts IPv4 or IPv6 (the Shield network sees both).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 (e.g., 1.2.3.4) or IPv6 (e.g., 2606:4700::1) address to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / ip / descriptionPrevious value: -"IPv4 address to look up (e.g., 1.2.3.4)"New value: +"IPv4 (e.g., 1.2.3.4) or IPv6 (e.g., 2606:4700::1) address to look up"Input schema / properties / ip / maxLengthPrevious value: -15New value: +45Input schema / properties / ip / patternPrevious value: -"^\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}$"New value: +"^(\\d{1,3}(\\.\\d{1,3}){3}|[0-9A-Fa-f:]{2,45})$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the data source and that it shows attack reports, but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or what happens on missing 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?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value, efficiently stating purpose, data source, and supported IP formats.
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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does, the input format, and the data source. However, it does not describe the return value or format, which would be helpful given no output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description largely mirrors the tool description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'ip' parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 the tool looks up community IP reputation from a specific network (Sectora Shield WAF) and reveals if an IP has been reported for attacks. It distinctly differs from sibling tools like lookup_cve or search_cves, which focus on CVEs.
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 implies the tool is for checking IP reputation but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to avoid it compared to alternatives. No usage restrictions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.