IP geolocation: country, region, city, coordinates, and timezone for any IPv4 or IPv6 address. Fast in-memory lookup for analytics, fraud, and personalization agents. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to locate. Omit to geolocate the caller. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | ||
| ll | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| timezone | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds performance characteristics ('Fast in-memory lookup'), cost ($0.001 per call), and the optional behavior of omitting the ip parameter to geolocate the caller, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately defines the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context (use cases and pricing). Extremely efficient.
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?
With low complexity, existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers use cases, optional behavior, and cost. It lacks mention of rate limits or error handling, but these are minor for a simple lookup tool.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'ip' parameter. The description adds the default behavior ('Omit to geolocate the caller'), adding meaning beyond the schema description.
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 IP geolocation, listing specific data fields (country, region, city, coordinates, timezone) and supporting both IPv4 and IPv6. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_*' tools by its unique purpose.
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 mentions use cases (analytics, fraud, personalization agents) and pricing, giving implicit guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.
Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.
With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.
The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).
