ASN lookup for a public IP or domain: the autonomous system and its network owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Public IP address or domain name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| ip | No | ||
| ok | No | ||
| asns | No | ||
| found | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| registry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "asns": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "allocated": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "asn": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "cc": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "registry": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "cc": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ip": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "prefix": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "registry": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: it specifies the input type (public IP or domain) and the output (ASN and network owner). It also distinguishes 'public' IPs, implying private IPs may not work. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose, output, and input constraints. Every word contributes value with no filler or redundancy.
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?
This is a simple lookup tool with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema. The description fully covers the essential purpose and input scope. It could optionally mention example queries or error behavior, but such details are not necessary given the simplicity and existing schema/annotations.
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 100%, with the parameter description already stating 'Public IP address or domain name.' The tool description repeats this information almost verbatim ('for a public IP or domain') and does not add new semantics like format examples or validation constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full meaning.
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 an 'ASN lookup' for a public IP or domain and returns 'the autonomous system and its network owner.' This is a specific verb + resource + outcome, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whois or ip_geolocation, which focus on different network attributes.
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 when to use the tool (when you need ASN information for a public IP or domain) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which aligns with a score of 3.
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.
Several tools cluster around overlapping diagnostics, such as asn_lookup vs ip_geolocation and website_status vs response_time/redirect_check/http_headers. Descriptions generally clarify the differences, but the boundaries between some tools are not immediately obvious.
Naming conventions are mixed: check_dns and check_ssl use verb-first, while dkim_check, spf_check, and hsts_check use noun-first. There are also varied styles like dns_propagation, domain_expiry, and whois, making the pattern inconsistent but still readable.
At 20 tools, the server falls into the borderline heavy range. Most tools address a distinct diagnostic need, but some could be consolidated, such as website_status overlapping with response_time and redirect_check.
The toolkit covers the core read-only network/domain diagnostic domain well: DNS, email authentication, SSL/TLS, WHOIS, IP intelligence, and website availability. Minor gaps like traceroute or DNSSEC validation exist, but there are no critical missing operations for the apparent purpose.