Bulk IP screen (bundle) — One call: screen up to 10 IPs at once for reputation/risk, each with ALLOW / REVIEW / BLOCK + score, plus an overall summary (counts and worst verdict). For firewall rules, log triage and connection batches. Price: $0.08 USDC (Base, via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | Yes | comma-separated IPv4/IPv6 list, up to 10 |
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 signal read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds behaviors beyond those annotations: it returns per-IP verdicts and scores, a summary with counts and worst verdict, and discloses the $0.08 USDC cost via x402. This is useful operational context an agent cannot infer from schema or 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the key details before use cases and price. The opening phrase 'Bulk IP screen (bundle)' is slightly redundant with the tool name/title, but the rest of each sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to select and invoke it: input cap, intended scenarios, output shape, and price. No critical operational information is missing.
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?
The input schema already documents ips as 'comma-separated IPv4/IPv6 list, up to 10' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. It effectively restates the cap ('up to 10 IPs at once'), which is consistent but not additive.
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 states a specific verb ('screen'), a precise resource (up to 10 IPs), and the expected result (reputation/risk with ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK + score and an overall summary). This clearly distinguishes it from single-IP sibling tools such as ip_intelligence or threat_ip.
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?
It gives concrete use cases: firewall rules, log triage, and connection batches, which tells an agent when to choose this bulk tool. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Many tools are clearly separated by prefix and data source, but several bundled products overlap heavily: vehicle_deal_check vs vehicle_report, realestate_property_report vs realestate_site_risk, finance_company_360 vs finance_health_scan, and domain_due_diligence vs email_domain_check/business_vet. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct premium bundle.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent snake_case category-prefix pattern like weather_, crypto_, vehicle_, finance_, and geo_. Minor deviations such as bare names (domain, ip) and noun-verb forms (dns_lookup, url_check) are easy to learn and don't create real confusion.
50 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped 3–15 range and will require heavy filtering to navigate. The broad multi-domain data marketplace partially justifies the size, but it would be more coherent split into per-domain servers or consolidated further.
For a read-only data/diligence marketplace, the surface is quite comprehensive: weather, vehicle, crypto, SEC/finance, domain/email, sanctions, and geo workflows all have core operations plus fused verdict bundles. Minor gaps exist—such as a simple crypto price lookup or vehicle market value—but agents can usually work around them.