Skip to main content
Glama

Hackertarget

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mtr

mtr
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Network path to [host]" / "where does traffic to [X] slow down" / "per-hop latency" — mtr report via HackerTarget, combining traceroute and ping into a per-hop table of loss and latency measured FROM HackerTarget's probe host, not from you. Use to see which network hop is losing packets. REQUIRES AN API KEY: HackerTarget gates this endpoint, and the keyless tier answers "error valid key required" (verified 2026-09-16).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesHostname or IP to trace to, e.g. "1.1.1.1".
_apiKeyYesYour HackerTarget API key, from the member dashboard. HackerTarget requires an API key for whois, mtr and traceroute — its free tier refuses those three with "error valid key required". Pipeworx supplies no key for this pack. Membership and API docs: https://hackertarget.com/ip-tools/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "target": "1.1.1.1"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your HackerTarget API key, from the member dashboard. HackerTarget requires an API key for whois, mtr and traceroute — its free tier refuses those three with \"error valid key required\". Pipeworx supplies no key for this pack. Membership and API docs: https://hackertarget.com/ip-tools/",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"Hostname or IP to trace to, e.g. \"1.1.1.1\"."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "target"
-]New value: +[
+  "target",
+  "_apiKey"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context on top: a hard API-key gate, the exact keyless failure mode ('error valid key required'), a verification date, and the critical caveat that results are measured from HackerTarget's probe host rather than the caller's network. That last point materially changes how an agent should interpret output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose, vantage-point caveat, and the key requirement are front-loaded in an efficient block, and every clause carries information. The quoted search-phrase lead-in is somewhat padding for an agent reader, but it is short and aids intent matching.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape ('per-hop table of loss and latency'), vantage point, and auth requirement. It omits rate limits, timeouts, and how to interpret ambiguous loss values, which would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (target, _apiKey) are fully documented in the schema, including the key-source URL and the same keyless-failure detail repeated in the description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (mtr report) and defines it precisely as traceroute+ping combined into a per-hop loss/latency table. It also flags the measurement vantage point ('FROM HackerTarget's probe host, not from you'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling traceroute tool, though traceroute/nping are never named as alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The lead-in search phrases ('where does traffic to X slow down', 'per-hop latency') plus 'Use to see which network hop is losing packets' give clear use contexts, and the API-key prerequisite is stated explicitly. However, no exclusion or named alternative (traceroute, nping) tells the agent when NOT to pick this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hackertarget toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources