iplookup
Server Details
IP Lookup MCP — ip-api.com (free, no auth for basic usage)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-iplookup
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: batch_geolocate handles multiple IPs in a single request, while geolocate_ip focuses on a single IP with detailed information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the use case.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (batch_geolocate and geolocate_ip), using snake_case and clear action descriptors. This predictability aids in understanding and usage without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for an IP lookup domain, as it lacks operations like reverse DNS lookup, IP validation, or threat intelligence checks. While the tools cover basic geolocation, the count is borderline minimal for a typical IP lookup service.
The server provides core geolocation functionality for single and batch IPs, but there are notable gaps such as missing reverse DNS, IP range analysis, or threat data integration. Agents can work around this for basic lookups, but advanced use cases may be unsupported.
Available Tools
2 toolsbatch_geolocateAInspect
Look up geolocation for multiple IP addresses in a single request. Accepts up to 100 IPs. Returns an array of results in the same order as the input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | Yes | Array of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses to look up (maximum 100) |
Tool Definition Quality
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 effectively describes key behaviors: the batch processing capability, input limit (100 IPs), and output ordering (same order as input). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are common for API tools, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality and constraint, while the second explains the output format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (batch processing with a limit), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, input constraints, and output behavior. However, it lacks details on error responses or example outputs, which would be helpful for an agent to handle edge cases, slightly reducing completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'ips' parameter as an array of IPv4/IPv6 addresses with a maximum of 100. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating the limit and input type. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or validation rules.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('look up geolocation') and resources ('multiple IP addresses'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'geolocate_ip' by emphasizing batch processing ('in a single request'). It explicitly mentions the scope ('up to 100 IPs') and output format ('array of results'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit usage guidance by specifying when to use this tool ('for multiple IP addresses in a single request') and implicitly when not to use it (for single IPs, suggesting the sibling 'geolocate_ip' as an alternative). It also sets clear constraints ('up to 100 IPs'), helping the agent choose appropriately based on input volume.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
geolocate_ipAInspect
Look up the geolocation, ISP, and network information for a single IP address (IPv4 or IPv6). Returns country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, and AS number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up (e.g., "8.8.8.8", "2001:4860:4860::8888") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (country, region, city, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, leaving gaps in transparency for a network-dependent 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and return values without redundancy. Every element serves a clear informational role, making it highly concise.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, input type, and return data. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response format or limitations.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'ip' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'geolocation, ISP, and network information for a single IP address', specifying both IPv4 and IPv6 support. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'batch_geolocate' by emphasizing 'single IP address'.
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 usage context by stating 'for a single IP address', which suggests this tool is for individual lookups versus batch processing. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool 'batch_geolocate' as an alternative or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!