iplookup

Geolocate Ip

geolocate_ip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an IP address to find its location and network details. Returns country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, and AS number. Use when you need to identify where a user or server is located.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up (e.g., "8.8.8.8", "2001:4860:4860::8888")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ip`	Yes	The queried IP address
`isp`	Yes	Internet Service Provider name
`city`	Yes	City name
`region`	Yes	State/region name
`country`	Yes	Country name
`latitude`	Yes	Latitude coordinate
`timezone`	Yes	IANA timezone identifier
`as_number`	Yes	Autonomous System number and name
`longitude`	Yes	Longitude coordinate
`postal_code`	Yes	ZIP or postal code
`country_code`	Yes	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
`organization`	Yes	Organization name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "as_number": {
+      "description": "Autonomous System number and name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "city": {
+      "description": "City name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "country": {
+      "description": "Country name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "country_code": {
+      "description": "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ip": {
+      "description": "The queried IP address",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "isp": {
+      "description": "Internet Service Provider name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "latitude": {
+      "description": "Latitude coordinate",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "longitude": {
+      "description": "Longitude coordinate",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "organization": {
+      "description": "Organization name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "postal_code": {
+      "description": "ZIP or postal code",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "region": {
+      "description": "State/region name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "timezone": {
+      "description": "IANA timezone identifier",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ip",
+    "country",
+    "country_code",
+    "region",
+    "city",
+    "postal_code",
+    "latitude",
+    "longitude",
+    "timezone",
+    "isp",
+    "organization",
+    "as_number"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ip": "8.8.8.8"
+  },
+  {
+    "ip": "2001:4860:4860::8888"
+  }
+]

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds the specific return fields (country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, AS number), which is useful context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, but given the annotations, the description meets the baseline without contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second lists expected output fields, and the third gives usage context. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values sufficiently. It lacks explicit differentiation from batch_geolocate, but that is a minor gap. The description is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'ip' parameter, which is fully described as an IPv4 or IPv6 address. The description's mention of 'IP address' adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool looks up an IP address to find location and network details, with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete return fields (country, region, city, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling batch_geolocate, which likely performs a similar operation for multiple IPs.

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 description includes a clear usage directive: 'Use when you need to identify where a user or server is located.' This provides context but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as batch_geolocate for multiple IPs. It is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

All iplookup tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tool groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/arbitrage/bet_research overlap heavily, and scan_competitor_ai_presence merely wraps ai_visibility_check. An agent would frequently have to guess which of several overlapping tools to call.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun/service-first compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, ai_visibility_check) and inconsistent suffix semantics (ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded). The pattern is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named iplookup; only 2 of 33 relate to IP geolocation. The rest form a sprawling data/prediction-market/memory platform that would be better split into multiple focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual described scope (a Pipeworx data platform), coverage is strong: routed lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity identity/profile/comparison, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, feedback, trending, and a full prediction-market arbitrage suite. Minor gaps exist (no direct pack-listing tool, no update for memory values), but there are no critical dead ends.

Geolocate Ip

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources