Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Whoisfreaks

Whoisfreaks

by WhoisFreaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

IP reputation check

ipSecurity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check an IPv4 or IPv6 address for VPN, proxy, Tor, spam, bot, cloud, or gateway signals to screen sign-ups and logins and triage suspicious IPs.

Instructions

Check the reputation of an IPv4 or IPv6 address: VPN, proxy (including residential), Tor exit node, privacy relay, spam and known-attacker activity, bots by type and operator, and whether it belongs to a cloud provider or a corporate secure web gateway. Use this for fraud checks, sign-up or login screening, or triaging a suspicious IP from logs. For many IPs at once use bulkIpSecurity. For location and ISP only use ipGeolocation. For the registered owner and abuse contact use ipWhoisLookup. Returns a threat score from 0 to 100, a flag and confidence score for each signal, provider names where known, and the IP's location, network (route, anycast, CDN) and ASN. A clean result means no signals were found, not that the IP is guaranteed safe. 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": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "ipSecurity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address to run security analysis on. Examples: 1.1.1.1 | 185.220.101.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), yet the description still adds real operational context: one request to the WhoisFreaks API, credential source (WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY or hosted key), consumption of the account's API credits, and the exact failure surface with HTTP codes 401/403/404/429 returning a short message instead of data. It also pre-empts a dangerous misreading with 'a clean result means no signals were found, not that the IP is guaranteed safe.'

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 what the tool checks, followed by usage routing, return shape, then behavior and error codes — a sensible information hierarchy. It is on the long side, and the enumerated HTTP-code list is denser than strictly needed, but nearly every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the return payload: a 0-100 threat score, per-signal flags with confidence, provider names, and location/network/ASN details. Combined with the credential, credit, and failure-mode disclosure, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including format examples, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the IPv4/IPv6 scope but adds no input semantics the schema lacks, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome for a well-covered single-param tool.

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 an IPv4 or IPv6 address') and enumerates exactly which signals are covered: VPN, residential proxy, Tor exit, privacy relay, spam, bots, cloud provider, corporate SWG. It explicitly distinguishes itself from three named siblings (bulkIpSecurity, ipGeolocation, ipWhoisLookup), so an agent can select 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?

Gives concrete use cases (fraud checks, sign-up/login screening, triaging a suspicious IP from logs) and then routes the agent away with explicit alternatives and their selecting conditions: bulkIpSecurity for many IPs, ipGeolocation for location/ISP only, ipWhoisLookup for owner and abuse contact. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present.

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