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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return format including results and error messages, but does not cover potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter documentation is integrated, but the structure could be cleaner by separating parameter details from the main description.
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 batch lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on input and output. However, it lacks examples or notes on error handling and maximum IPs limit enforcement.
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%, so the description compensates by defining the 'ips' parameter as a comma-separated list of IP addresses, adding crucial format and limit context beyond the raw 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 IPs, specifies it handles up to 5 IPs in comma-separated format, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lookup_ip' which is likely for single 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 gives usage context by stating the limit and format. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'lookup_ip' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the implication is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.