ZapifyAPI MCP Server

ip_geolocation

Lookup an IP address to get its geographic location, including country, city, and coordinates. Use for network diagnostics and user geo-targeting.

Instructions

Get geographic location of an IP address.

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": {
      "target_ip": "<target_ip>"
    },
    "name": "ip_geolocation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_ip`	Yes	IP address to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose the return format, potential for IPv6 support, rate limits, or any prerequisites. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's 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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no extraneous content, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but lacks detail about the nature of the geographic location (e.g., country, city, coordinates). Given the minimal schema and absence of annotations, the description could provide more context to be fully actionable.

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% and the single parameter 'target_ip' is described as 'IP address to look up.' The tool description adds only that the result is a geographic location, which is somewhat redundant with the tool name. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'geographic location of an IP address,' clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup, whois_lookup, or get_country_info, which could overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states the action, leaving usage entirely implied.

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