Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Facilities

search_facilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find colocation facilities (data centers) in PeeringDB by name, city, or country (2-letter code). Returns the facility name, location, network count, street address, and website. Provide at least one of query/city/country. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity name.
limitNoMax results (default 20).
queryNoFacility name (matches names containing this text).
countryNo2-letter ISO country code, e.g. US, DE, GB.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Equinix"
+  },
+  {
+    "city": "Amsterdam",
+    "country": "NL"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds extra behavioral context by listing the return fields ('facility name, location, network count, street address, and website') and noting 'Keyless' (no API key required), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary verbiage. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and search criteria, and the second sentence covers return values and the input requirement, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it returns, the input requirement, and the keyless nature. It does not cover pagination or sorting, but the limit parameter is in the schema, so the description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantic value by specifying that at least one of query/city/country is required and clarifying that query matches facility names, which reinforces and extends the schema information.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action and resource: 'Find colocation facilities (data centers) in PeeringDB by name, city, or country.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like search_networks and search_exchanges by specifying the facility type and data source.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Provide at least one of query/city/country.' It implies the tool is for facility searches, giving clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

All Peeringdb toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve question-answering/discovery; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyze prediction markets; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily. Only the three PeeringDB search tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb-led snake_case (search_networks, validate_claim, subscribe) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts) and inconsistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk vs polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent verb_noun pattern is present.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a coherent surface, especially since the server is named 'Peeringdb' but only 3 of 34 tools relate to PeeringDB. The Pipeworx/Prediction-market/memory/AI-visibility tools form several distinct sub-domains that would be better split into separate servers or consolidated.

Completeness2/5

For PeeringDB, only search_exchanges/facilities/networks exist—no get-by-id, no facility/network details beyond search results, and no read/update operations. For the broader Pipeworx domain, coverage is fragmented: many meta-tools overlap while some obvious operations (e.g., updating a saved memory, deeper entity relationships) are missing. The domain is poorly scoped, making completeness hard to assess.

Resources