Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kaidn-mcp

Kaidn-mcp

Official
by Kaidn-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Check an IP address

check_ip

Assess IP reputation by checking for proxy/VPN/Tor usage, datacenter ASN, geolocation, fraud score, and cross-operator abuse history.

Instructions

Enrichment and in-network reputation for one IP: proxy/VPN/Tor, datacenter ASN, geo, fraud score, and cross-operator abuse history. Consumes one row of monthly quota.

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": "check_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesThe IPv4 or IPv6 address to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses quota consumption, a behavioral trait, but does not mention other aspects like read-only nature, latency, or error behavior. This is partial disclosure.

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, no fluff. The purpose and key constraint (quota) are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description lists the return categories and quota cost, providing adequate context for the agent. It could mention limitations or assumptions but is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of the ip parameter with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond confirming 'one IP', which does not exceed the schema's content.

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's function: enriching and providing in-network reputation for a single IP address, listing specific data categories. This distinguishes it from check_email/check_phone siblings targeting different entities.

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 the tool is for IP lookups but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools