Skip to main content
Glama

Hackertarget

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Traceroute

traceroute
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Traceroute to [host]" / "what route does traffic take to [X]" / "how many hops to [address]" — traceroute via HackerTarget, listing the routers between HackerTarget's probe host and the target. The path is measured from their network, not yours. 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. "pipeworx.io".
_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. \"pipeworx.io\"."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "target"
-]New value: +[
+  "target",
+  "_apiKey"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: an explicit API-key requirement with the exact failure text ('error valid key required') and a note on the probe origin. It omits rate limits and result format, but the auth and measurement caveats are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Query phrasings are front-loaded, followed by the operational explanation and the critical API-key caveat. Slightly dense with the slash-separated example style, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers input semantics, the auth prerequisite, and what the result conceptually is (the list of intermediate routers). The only missing piece is any notion of pagination or result size, which is minor here.

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%, so both 'target' and '_apiKey' are fully documented in the schema, including that HackerTarget requires a key for whois/mtr/traceroute. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 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 and resource ('traceroute to host, listing the routers between HackerTarget's probe host and the target') and even clarifies the measurement origin. It distinguishes itself from a generic traceroute ('path is measured from their network, not yours') but never names or routes against the obvious sibling mtr, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 leading example phrasings ('what route does traffic take to [X]', 'how many hops to [address]') map natural user intents onto this tool, giving clear invocation context. However it offers no when-not guidance and does not point to mtr for continuous probing, so no explicit alternatives are given.

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