Whoisfreaks

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Bulk IP reputation check

bulkIpSecurity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks the reputation of up to 100 IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in one request, returning VPN, proxy, Tor, spam, attacker, and bot signals to screen suspicious sign-ups or failed logins.

Instructions

Check the reputation of up to 100 IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in one request: VPN, proxy, Tor, relay, spam, known-attacker and bot signals for each. Use this instead of calling ipSecurity many times, for example to screen the IPs behind a wave of sign-ups or failed logins. For one IP use ipSecurity. For location only use bulkIpGeolocation. Costs 1 credit per IP answered. An invalid IP returns its own error entry while the other IPs still return results. Returns one entry per IP, with the same fields as ipSecurity. Behavior: read-only. Makes one request to the WhoisFreaks API using your WhoisFreaks API key (the WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY environment variable, or on the hosted server the key sent with the request) and uses that account's API credits; nothing is created or changed. If the call fails, the result is a short message instead of data, for example: key invalid, or plan or credits used up (HTTP 401), domain extension not supported (HTTP 403), no data found (HTTP 404), or rate limit reached (HTTP 429).

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": {
      "ips": "<ips>"
    },
    "name": "bulkIpSecurity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ips`	Yes	IPv4 or IPv6 addresses to check, at most 100. Example: ["1.1.1.1", "185.220.101.45"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the credit cost model (1 credit per IP answered), partial-failure semantics (an invalid IP yields its own error entry while other IPs still return results), the return shape (one entry per IP with the same fields as ipSecurity), auth source (WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY or hosted key), and concrete failure messages with HTTP codes. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling routing before cost and error behavior, and each sentence carries information. The closing error-code enumeration is somewhat long and could be tightened, but it is not filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, cost, auth, partial failure, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it reiterates the 100-address cap, confirms both IPv4 and IPv6 are acceptable, and specifies per-item error behavior for invalid addresses. It does not add format or normalization details beyond what the schema example already shows.

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 and resource ('Check the reputation of up to 100 IPv4 or IPv6 addresses') and enumerates the signal categories returned (VPN, proxy, Tor, relay, spam, known-attacker, bot). It also names the sibling it replaces and the sibling for a different need, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing rules: use this instead of calling ipSecurity repeatedly, use ipSecurity for a single IP, and use bulkIpGeolocation for location only. It even supplies concrete scenarios (screening IPs behind a wave of sign-ups or failed logins), leaving nothing to inference.

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