Skip to main content
Glama

Whisper

by io.github.whisper-sec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up an address in RDAP

whisper_rdap
Read-only

The public registration record for any address in Whisper's space, in RFC 9083 form: the handle, the agent's label, its country, and the entities behind it. The same document the RDAP service serves at /ip/{address}, which any RDAP client can already read. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"rdap","input":"2a04:2a01:b69a:6717:e3b0:51ff:3bf7:f478"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe indicator to look up: a domain, an IP address, an ASN or a file hash. The example passes 2a04:2a01:b69a:6717:e3b0:51ff:3bf7:f478.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe label its owner gave it.
typeNoWhat kind of allocation this is.
linksNoRelated RDAP and web resources.
eventsNoRegistration lifecycle events with their timestamps.
handleYesThe registry handle for this address.
statusNoRegistry status values for the object.
countryNoTwo-letter country code of the registration.
noticesNoService-level notices, including the terms of use.
remarksNoFree-text notes the registry publishes with the object.
entitiesNoThe parties behind the registration, in RFC 9083 entity form.
ipVersionNo"v6" or "v4".
endAddressNoLast address of the range.
startAddressNoFirst address of the range.
objectClassNameYesAlways "ip network" for this tool (RFC 9083).
rdapConformanceNoThe RDAP extensions this answer conforms to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The public registration record for one address, RFC 9083 shaped, byte-for-byte what the RDAP service serves at /ip/{address}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "country": {
+      "description": "Two-letter country code of the registration.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "endAddress": {
+      "description": "Last address of the range.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "entities": {
+      "description": "The parties behind the registration, in RFC 9083 entity form.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "events": {
+      "description": "Registration lifecycle events with their timestamps.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "handle": {
+      "description": "The registry handle for this address.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ipVersion": {
+      "description": "\"v6\" or \"v4\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "links": {
+      "description": "Related RDAP and web resources.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "The label its owner gave it.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notices": {
+      "description": "Service-level notices, including the terms of use.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "objectClassName": {
+      "description": "Always \"ip network\" for this tool (RFC 9083).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rdapConformance": {
+      "description": "The RDAP extensions this answer conforms to.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "remarks": {
+      "description": "Free-text notes the registry publishes with the object.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "startAddress": {
+      "description": "First address of the range.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Registry status values for the object.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "What kind of allocation this is.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "objectClassName",
+    "handle"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds that it is public, requires no API key, and returns the same RFC 9083 document served at /ip/{address}, along with the specific fields. This is useful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core meaning and returning field list. The middle sentence about the RDAP service being publicly readable is mildly redundant but reinforces the access model.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the key operational facts: output format, an example call, and the lack of an API key requirement. The main gap is the ambiguity between address and the schema's accepted indicator types, though the schema resolves it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, listing domain, IP, ASN, or file hash as valid inputs. The description adds a concrete example call and repeats address, but its address and /ip/ wording does not fully align with the schema's broader indicator list, so it neither strengthens nor significantly clarifies the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a concrete resource: the public RFC 9083 registration record for an address, and lists the returned fields including handle, agent label, country, and entities. It is distinct from sibling tools like whisper_lookupTorRelay or whisper_lookupTlsFingerprint, though the use of address and the /ip/ endpoint slightly undercuts the schema's broader domain/ASN/hash scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that the tool answers without an API key and that the same document is served by the RDAP service, implying it is a simple public read for registry information. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer when to choose this over other whisper tools.

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

All Whisper toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources