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 |
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 behavioral traits. It mentions the return includes country, city, ISP, coords, and an error message, but does not address idempotency, rate limits, authentication, or what happens with invalid IPs. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but minimal.
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: one sentence for purpose, then structured parameter and return docs. Every sentence adds value, and critical info is front-loaded.
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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return. It lacks usage guidelines and error handling details, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
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 must explain parameters. It defines 'ip (str): The IP address to geolocate.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type/name, effectively compensating for the lack of schema documentation.
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 geolocates an IP address, specifying IPv4/IPv6. The verb 'Geolocate' and resource 'IP address' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (health_check, lookup_batch), though the functionality is distinct.
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 when geolocation is needed but provides no guidance on when to avoid this tool or use alternatives. No prerequisites or context about batch vs single lookup are given.
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.