Skip to main content
Glama

Ripe Stat

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Whois

whois
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Whois lookup for IP / ASN / prefix" / "who owns IP [X]" / "WHOIS for [resource]" — aggregated whois data for an IP address, IP prefix, or AS number across all five RIRs (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC). Returns registrant org, registration country, abuse contacts, allocation date. Use for IP ownership, abuse-response, network forensics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYesIP address, prefix, or AS number (e.g. "8.8.8.8", "8.8.8.0/24", "AS15169")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoWhois data aggregated across RIRs
statusNoAPI response status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "resource": "8.8.8.8"
+  },
+  {
+    "resource": "AS15169"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Whois data aggregated across RIRs",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "API response status",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "resource": "8.8.8.8"
-  },
-  {
-    "resource": "AS15169"
-  }
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "data": {
-      "description": "Whois data aggregated across RIRs",
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "description": "API response status",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "resource": "8.8.8.8"
+  },
+  {
+    "resource": "AS15169"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Whois data aggregated across RIRs",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "API response status",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it queries all five RIRs and returns aggregated data, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose in natural language, then provides the technical detail, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 tool has one simple parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs it accepts (with examples), what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description explains the parameter. The tool description adds concrete examples (e.g., '8.8.8.8', '8.8.8.0/24', 'AS15169'), which help the agent understand valid formats beyond the generic schema description. This adds meaningful value.

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 it performs whois lookup for IP/ASN/prefix using all five RIRs, and explicitly mentions the returned fields (registrant org, country, abuse contacts, allocation date). It also provides alternative natural language queries. While not explicitly differentiating from siblings, the specificity of 'aggregated whois data' sets it apart from related tools like geoloc or prefix_overview.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for IP ownership, abuse-response, network forensics.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternative tools, such as `abuse_contact` for only abuse contacts or `geoloc` for geolocation.

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

All Ripe Stat 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