Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vulnerability-exposure-mcp

vulnerability-exposure-mcp

by MRFrazer25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

IP network owner

ip_owner
Read-onlyIdempotent

Looks up who owns a public IP address via RDAP, returning the registering organisation, IP range, country and abuse contact for exposure investigations.

Instructions

Who a public IP's network is registered to (organisation, range, country, abuse contact), from the regional internet registry over RDAP. Already run for an IP target; use it for other IPs you find. No key.

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_address": "<ip_address>"
    },
    "name": "ip_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ip_addressYesA public IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. '8.8.8.8'.
investigation_idNoThe investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / investigation_id / description
      Added value: +"The investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ip_address / description
      Added value: +"A public IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. '8.8.8.8'."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on adding value beyond them: the data comes from the RIR via RDAP, and no API key is needed. It also clarifies the side effect of omitting investigation_id (the lookup runs standalone rather than counting toward evidence/budget). Return shape and rate behavior are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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 the payload the caller gets, followed by the operational guidance. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by enumerating the returned attributes and the upstream source, and it explains the investigation_id trade-off. It leaves out failure behavior (private/invalid IPs, RDAP gaps), which for a simple read-only lookup is a minor omission.

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%, including an explicit note that investigation_id should come from investigate_target and what it affects, so the schema already carries both parameters. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier on the IP, which the schema itself states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb-equivalent and resource: registration ownership of a public IP, with the concrete fields returned (organisation, range, country, abuse contact) and the authoritative source (regional internet registry over RDAP). That field list plus the RDAP source cleanly separates it from reputation-style siblings like abuseipdb_check or virustotal_check without needing to name them.

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?

"Already run for an IP target; use it for other IPs you find" gives a clear trigger for when to reach for this tool, and implicitly routes the primary target IP to investigate_target. It stops short of explicitly excluding the reputation-check siblings, so the choice against abuseipdb_check/virustotal_check is left to inference.

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