Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
Iploop

ProxyClaw MCP Server

by Iploop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

🌐 ProxyClaw MCP 서버

IPLoop의 ProxyClaw를 위한 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다.

Claude Desktop, Cursor, Zed 또는 모든 MCP 호환 클라이언트에서 직접 195개 이상의 국가에 걸친 1억 7,500만 개 이상의 주거용 IP를 통해 웹 요청을 라우팅하세요.

MCP 서버를 갖춘 유일한 주거용 프록시 네트워크입니다. 이제 AI가 데이터 센터가 아닌 실제 가정에서 브라우징할 수 있습니다.

✨ 제공 기능

  • 195개 이상의 국가 — 실제 주거용 IP를 통해 요청 라우팅

  • 안티봇 우회 — Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX도 구분할 수 없음

  • 제로 설정 — 하나의 환경 변수, 4개의 강력한 도구

  • 고정 세션(Sticky sessions) — 여러 요청에 걸쳐 동일한 IP 유지

  • 도시 및 ISP 타겟팅 — 필요할 때 정밀한 타겟팅 가능

Related MCP server: ProxyBase MCP

⚡ Node.js vs Python — 무엇을 선택할까요?

두 가지 MCP 서버를 제공합니다. 필요에 따라 선택하세요:

이 저장소 (Node.js)

Python 버전

기능

프록시 라우팅 + fetch

전체 안티봇 + 헤드리스 렌더링 + 구조화된 추출

용도

단순 fetch, 지리적 타겟팅

보호된 사이트(Amazon, eBay, LinkedIn) 스크래핑, JS 렌더링 페이지

탐지 방지

Chrome 지문 헤더

TLS JA3 스푸핑 + Playwright 안티 탐지

설치

npx proxyclaw-mcp-server

uvx proxyclaw-mcp-server[all]

도구

4개 (fetch, check_ip, list_countries, rotate)

6개 (+ 스텔스 fetch, 렌더링, 스크래핑, 추출)

→ 주거용 IP를 통해 요청을 라우팅하기만 하면 된다면 Node.js를 사용하세요.

→ 까다로운 대상(Cloudflare, SPA, React 사이트)을 스크래핑하거나 60개 이상의 지원 사이트에서 구조화된 데이터를 추출해야 한다면 Python을 사용하세요.

둘 다 동일한 프록시 네트워크를 사용하지만, 제공하는 기능의 수준이 다릅니다.

🚀 설치 (30초 소요)

1. 무료 API 키 받기

**iploop.io/signup**에서 가입하세요. 신용카드 없이 0.5GB를 무료로 제공합니다.

2. Claude Desktop에 추가

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) 또는 %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows) 파일을 엽니다:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "proxyclaw": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "proxyclaw-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "IPLOOP_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop을 재시작하세요. 완료되었습니다.

3. 확인

Claude에게 다음과 같이 물어보세요:

"프록시를 통해 내 나가는 IP를 확인해줘"

Claude가 proxy_check_ip를 호출하여 현재 라우팅 중인 주거용 IP를 보여줄 것입니다.

🛠️ 사용 가능한 도구

proxy_fetch

주거용 프록시를 통해 모든 URL을 가져옵니다.

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "country": "US",
  "city": "newyork",
  "session": "my-session-id",
  "timeout": 30
}

사용 시기: 지리적으로 제한된 사이트 스크래핑, 지역별 가격 확인, 봇 탐지 우회.

proxy_check_ip

어떤 IP와 국가를 통해 나가는지 확인합니다.

{
  "country": "DE"
}

사용 시기: 스크래핑 전 프록시 위치 확인.

proxy_list_countries

사용 가능한 195개 이상의 모든 국가를 나열합니다.

{}

사용 시기: 마다가스카르의 정확한 2자리 국가 코드를 알아야 할 때.

proxy_rotate

강제로 새로운 IP로 교체합니다.

{
  "country": "GB"
}

사용 시기: 현재 IP가 속도 제한에 걸려 새로운 IP가 필요할 때.

💬 대화 예시

사용자: "미국 IP에서 Amazon.com이 어떻게 보이는지 확인해줘"

Claude: [country=US로 proxy_fetch 호출, HTML 반환]

사용자: "이제 일본에서 같은 페이지를 확인해줘"

Claude: [country=JP로 proxy_fetch 호출, 다른 가격/콘텐츠 반환]

사용자: "라우팅 가능한 모든 국가를 나열해줘"

Claude: [proxy_list_countries 호출, 195개 이상의 국가 반환]

사용자: "현재 IP가 차단됐어. 새로운 영국 IP로 교체해줘"

Claude: [country=GB로 proxy_rotate 호출, 새로운 IP 확인]

🔒 보안

  • API 키는 환경 변수를 통해 전달되며, 코드에 하드코딩되지 않습니다.

  • 대상 사이트로의 모든 트래픽은 TLS로 암호화됩니다.

  • 프록시 인증은 당사의 프록시 게이트웨이로만 평문으로 전송됩니다(모든 HTTP 프록시와 동일).

  • MCP 서버에 의해 데이터가 기록되거나 저장되지 않습니다.

📦 고급: 로컬 설치

npm install -g proxyclaw-mcp-server

# Run directly
IPLOOP_API_KEY=your_key proxyclaw-mcp-server

또는 Docker 사용:

docker run -e IPLOOP_API_KEY=your_key proxyclaw/mcp-server

🆓 무료 티어

  • 0.5 GB 대역폭 포함

  • 195개 이상의 모든 국가 사용 가능

  • 신용카드 불필요

iploop.io에서 언제든지 업그레이드하세요.

🔗 링크

Built with ⚡ by IPLoop

Available Tools

4 tools
proxy_check_ipA

Check the current exit IP address and geo-location when routing through the proxy. Useful to verify which country/region your requests are coming from.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNo2-letter country code to check exit IP from (optional, auto-rotate if omitted)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions 'auto-rotate if omitted' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, potential side effects (e.g., token consumption), or error states.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, concise and to the point. No unnecessary words.

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?

Tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). Description covers purpose and key behavior (auto-rotation). Could mention return format (IP, geo) but not critical for a simple check tool.

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 coverage is 100% (country param described). Description adds context that country is optional and auto-rotation occurs if omitted, which goes beyond schema. However, no other parameters exist, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool checks 'exit IP address and geo-location' and its purpose to 'verify which country/region' the proxy is using. Distinct from siblings like proxy_fetch or proxy_rotate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States when to use: to verify proxy location. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough. Siblings like proxy_list_countries or proxy_rotate imply alternatives for different needs.

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

proxy_fetchA

Fetch a URL through the ProxyClaw residential proxy network. Routes the request through real residential IPs in 195+ countries. Use for geo-restricted content, anti-bot bypass, or multi-country research.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to fetch (must start with http:// or https://)
countryNo2-letter country code to route through (e.g., US, DE, JP). Auto-rotate if omitted.
cityNoCity name for city-level targeting (optional)
sessionNoSession ID for sticky IP (same IP across requests with same session ID)
asnNoASN number for ISP-level targeting (optional)
timeoutNoRequest timeout in seconds (1-120, default: 30)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that it routes through residential IPs in 195+ countries, and mentions auto-rotation of IP if no country specified. However, since no annotations are provided, it should also mention potential side effects (e.g., cost, rate limits, IP rotation impact) which are missing. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds value with use cases.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (100% cover), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It could include a note about response format or potential failures, but overall it provides enough context for a competent agent.

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 the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds context about country targeting and session stickyness but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches a URL through a residential proxy network, with specific use cases like geo-restricted content and anti-bot bypass. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_check_ip (which checks own IP) and proxy_list_countries (which lists countries).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions when to use the tool (geo-restricted content, anti-bot bypass, multi-country research), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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

proxy_list_countriesA

List all 195+ countries available for routing through the ProxyClaw residential network.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a list of 195+ countries with routing capability, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or output format.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and performs a straightforward listing operation, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return data structure or confirming it is a read operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description adds value by indicating the tool lists all countries without need for input.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('countries available for routing through the ProxyClaw residential network'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., proxy_check_ip, proxy_fetch, proxy_rotate) by its unique purpose of listing countries.

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 implies that the tool is meant to retrieve a list of all supported countries for routing, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

proxy_rotateA

Force IP rotation by fetching with a new random session. Returns the new exit IP to confirm rotation worked.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNo2-letter country code (optional)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description discloses that the tool forces rotation and returns the new IP, which is sufficient behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects like invalidating existing sessions or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it adequately covers the core behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: states what it does and what it returns. Optimal for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, action, and outcome. Minor gap is lack of explicit statement about any prerequisites.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage; description does not add meaning beyond schema's '2-letter country code (optional).' Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already explains the parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool's action ('force IP rotation'), method ('fetching with a new random session'), and outcome ('returns the new exit IP to confirm rotation'). It is distinct from siblings like proxy_check_ip which checks current IP, and proxy_fetch which likely fetches a page.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description implies when to use (when a new IP is needed) and provides confirmation mechanism. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given sibling names.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedproxy_check_ip
    • First observedproxy_fetch
    • First observedproxy_list_countries
    • First observedproxy_rotate
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: check IP, fetch URL, list countries, and rotate IP. There is no overlap between these functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'proxy_verb' pattern (e.g., proxy_check_ip, proxy_fetch), making them easy to understand and remember.

Tool Count5/5

The set of 4 tools covers the core proxy operations (check, fetch, list, rotate) without unnecessary extras, well-scoped for the proxy domain.

Completeness4/5

Core proxy workflows are covered: checking IP, fetching through proxy, listing countries, and rotating IP. One minor gap might be the lack of a tool to set the country explicitly, but rotation and checks suffice.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Proxy4Agent

    Goldentrii
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Routes AI agent HTTP requests through residential proxies to bypass anti-bot systems, geo-target by country/city, and maintain sticky sessions across multi-step workflows.
    17 npm
    1
    MIT
  • quantumproxies-mcp by quantumproxies

    quantumproxies-mcpofficial

    quantumproxies
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to scrape, search, map, and crawl the web through residential proxies with real-browser TLS fingerprints, and to generate ready-to-use proxy endpoints of various types for any HTTP client.
    25
    21 npm
    MIT