Skip to main content
Glama

IP Address Lookup

ip-lookup
Read-only

Look up normalized RDAP allocation data (network range, holder, country, status, geofeed URL) for an IP address or CIDR block.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "ip-lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. "8.8.8.8" or "2001:4860:4860::8888".
prefixNoOptional CIDR prefix length, e.g. 24. Must be 0-32 for IPv4 or 0-128 for IPv6.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's remaining burden is light. It still adds value by disclosing the data source ('normalized RDAP') and enumerating the fields returned, which matters given there is no output schema; it does not cover error handling or upstream rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the return-field list into a parenthetical. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it names the data source and the returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. It stops short of explaining error cases or how a CIDR query differs from a single-address query.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The phrase 'IP address or CIDR block' loosely ties the ip/prefix pair together but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('normalized RDAP allocation data') scoped to an IP address or CIDR block, with a parenthetical enumerating the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from domain-oriented siblings, though it never names or contrasts them directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource itself — use this when you have an IP or CIDR and need allocation info. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when asn-lookup, domain-lookup or entity-lookup would be the better choice.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources