Ip Geolocation Mcp
Server Details
Unlock the power of IP geolocation with our tool! Whether you're a developer needing location data
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health_check for server status, lookup_ip for single IP geolocation, lookup_batch for multiple IPs. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: health_check, lookup_batch, lookup_ip. No mixing of conventions or styles.
Three tools is appropriate for an IP geolocation server: core single and batch lookups plus a health check. Not excessive nor insufficient.
The set covers the essential operations for IP geolocation: single lookup, batch lookup, and server health. Minor gaps like error handling details or bulk upload exist but are not critical for typical use.
Available Tools
3 toolshealth_checkBInspect
Server health check.
Returns:
dict: Health status of the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns a dict with health status, but does not mention whether it is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be improved by specifying typical keys in the returned health status dict or indicating if errors are possible. It is not fully complete but sufficient for basic use.
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 tool has zero parameters, and parameter semantics are fully covered by the input schema by definition. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 performs a server health check, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lookup_batch' and 'lookup_ip' that are data lookups. It is specific about the resource (server) and action (health check).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_batchAInspect
Lookup up to 5 IPs (comma-separated). Returns {results: [...]}.
Params:
ips (str): Comma-separated list of IP addresses.
Returns:
dict: Results of IP lookups or error messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It specifies the maximum batch size and return format, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid IPs.
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 extremely concise with no redundant text. It front-loads the key action and limits, and uses a bullet for parameters.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, input format, and return shape. Minor lack of detail on error states and exactly what 'results' contains.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the parameter: it's a comma-separated string of IPs, and max 5. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 looks up up to 5 IPs in a comma-separated format, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lookup_ip' by handling multiple IPs.
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 use for batch IP lookups but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 'lookup_ip'. It mentions 'up to 5', which sets a clear boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_ipAInspect
Geolocate an IPv4/IPv6 address. Returns country, city, ISP, coords.
Params:
ip (str): The IP address to geolocate.
Returns:
dict: Geolocation data or error message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returned fields (country, city, ISP, coords) and error handling, but omits details like rate limits, authentication, or destructive potential.
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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently lists params and returns with no wasted words.
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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and return value adequately, though it could mention behavior for invalid IPs.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying 'ip (str): The IP address to geolocate', but lacks format details or validation hints.
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 uses a specific verb ('Geolocate') and resource ('IPv4/IPv6 address'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like health_check and lookup_batch.
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 for geolocating a single IP, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention siblings as alternatives.
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!