Check any IP address against GreyNoise Community API to get benign, malicious, or unknown classification, scanner status, and last seen timestamp.
Look up an IP address on GreyNoise Community API. Returns classification (benign/malicious/unknown), scanner status, and last seen timestamp. Free, no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP address to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the returned fields (classification, scanner status, last-seen) and that it is free with no API key, which matters for an agent deciding whether the call will succeed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and API, followed by return content and access constraints. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It is nearly complete for a simple single-param lookup, though it omits any note on rate limits, error/not-found behavior, or result freshness beyond 'last seen timestamp'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'ip' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (look up) and resource (IP address) plus the backing API, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like greynoise_check or abuseipdb_check/otx_ip, which also perform IP reputation lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given, despite a crowded field of IP-reputation siblings (greynoise_check, abuseipdb_check, otx_ip, pulsedive_indicator, tor_exit_check). The agent must guess which IP tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.