domain-security-mcp-server

IP Geolocation

ip_geolocation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Geolocate any IP address to identify country, region, city, coordinates, time zone, and reverse-DNS hostname using an offline database. Returns structured results in Markdown or JSON.

Instructions

Geolocate an IP address (country, region, city, coordinates, time zone) using the offline DB-IP Lite database, plus its reverse-DNS hostname. No external API.

Args:

ip (string): IPv4 or IPv6 address.
response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): output format (default 'markdown').

Returns: { ip, country_iso, country_name, region, city, latitude, longitude, time_zone, hostname }.

Example: "Where is 151.101.1.69 located?" -> ip_geolocation(ip="151.101.1.69"). Note: geolocation is approximate (city-level at best) and offline data may lag reality. The time zone is estimated from the coordinates. Data: IP Geolocation by DB-IP (https://db-ip.com), licensed CC BY 4.0 — credit it when showing these results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. '1.1.1.1'.
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for a human-readable summary (default) or 'json' for the full structured payload.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes
`city`	No
`region`	No
`hostname`	No
`latitude`	No
`longitude`	No
`time_zone`	No
`country_iso`	No
`country_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.1Sep 14, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
addedInput schema / properties / ip / maxLength
```
Added value: +45
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv1.0.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: geolocation is approximate, data may lag reality, time zone is estimated from coordinates, and licensing attribution is required. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections (Args, Returns, Example, Note, Data). Every sentence earns its place: the approximation note is critical, and the licensing instruction is essential for compliance. It is appropriately sized without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It includes the return structure (ip, country_iso, etc.), a concrete example, limitations (approximate, data lag), and licensing. An agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the results.

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% for both parameters (ip and response_format), including types, defaults, and examples. The description's Args section merely restates these parameters without adding new semantic meaning. Per the baseline rule for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with extra parameter insights.

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 states a specific verb ('Geolocate'), a resource (IP address), and enumerates the output fields (country, region, city, coordinates, time zone) plus the reverse-DNS hostname. It also distinguishes the tool by noting it uses an offline DB-IP Lite database with no external API, which separates it from the sibling DNS/email tools. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 makes the tool's usage obvious through its stated purpose and notes 'No external API' implying it is fast and offline. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide conditions for when to use this tool over siblings. Since the function is so specific, an agent would naturally select it for IP geolocation, but explicit guidance on alternatives is missing.

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