Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Networks

search_networks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up networks in PeeringDB by name or ASN. Returns peering policy (Open/Selective/Restrictive), traffic level, info type (Content/NSP/ISP/Enterprise), scope, and IPv4/IPv6 prefix counts. Provide a name query or an ASN. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asnNoAutonomous System Number, e.g. 15169 for Google.
limitNoMax results (default 20, max 100).
queryNoNetwork name (matches names containing this text).

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": "Google"
+  },
+  {
+    "asn": 15169
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints. The description adds transparency by specifying 'Keyless' (no auth) and enumerating the exact output fields (peering policy, traffic level, info type, scope, prefix counts), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 appropriately concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then states key output fields and input requirements. Every clause adds information, and the keyless note is a compact way to convey authentication status.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned attributes. It covers the purpose, input requirements (currently query/ASN), and the data returned, making it self-contained. It is complete enough for a search tool, especially given the rich annotations and parameter descriptions.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by indicating that query and ASN are alternative inputs ('Provide a name query or an ASN'), which clarifies their relationship. It also notes 'Keyless' implicitly affecting usage, but the main added value is the mutual exclusivity hint.

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 identifies the tool as a lookup for PeeringDB networks by name or ASN, with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('networks in PeeringDB'). It also lists the returned attributes, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_exchanges or search_facilities.

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 clear context on how to invoke the tool: 'Provide a name query or an ASN' and 'Keyless' indicates no authentication prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the coverage of input modes is clear. Since no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all provide data retrieval with subtle differences. The Polymarket suite (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and AI visibility tools (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also have fuzzy boundaries. While some tools are clearly distinct, the overall set has significant ambiguity that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some are verb_noun (search_networks, compare_entities, remember, forget), others are noun_compound (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx), and a few are verb-only (recall, forget). The pattern is inconsistent, with no clear naming strategy across the tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While it serves as a general data platform, many tools are meta-level (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or peripheral (subscriptions, memory). The count feels excessive for the core purpose, and many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness1/5

Despite the server name 'Peeringdb', only three tools (search_networks, search_facilities, search_exchanges) directly serve that domain. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated areas (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions). For the declared purpose of PeeringDB, the surface is severely incomplete—missing common operations like retrieving network details, viewing IX members, or managing peering policies.

Resources