Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Whoisfreaks

Whoisfreaks

by WhoisFreaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

IP WHOIS lookup

ipWhoisLookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve registry WHOIS details for an IPv4 or IPv6 address to identify the owning organization, CIDR range, AS number and abuse contact.

Instructions

Get the registry WHOIS record for an IPv4 or IPv6 address: who the IP block is allocated to. Use this to find the owning organisation, CIDR range, AS number and abuse contact of an IP, for example to report abuse. For city, ISP and coordinates use ipGeolocation. For VPN, proxy, Tor and threat signals use ipSecurity. For details about the autonomous system itself use asnWhoisLookup. For domains hosted on the IP use reverseDnsLookup. Returns the network range (inetnum/inet6num) and CIDR, owning organisation and ASN, admin, technical and abuse contacts, route objects, and the raw WHOIS text. 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": "ipWhoisLookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. Examples: 8.8.8.8 | 2001:4860:4860::8888
formatNoResponse format. Default: json

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the upstream dependency (WhoisFreaks API), the credential mechanism (WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY or per-request key), and the cost model (consumes account API credits). It also enumerates failure modes with concrete HTTP codes and meanings (401 invalid key/credits, 403 unsupported extension, 404 no data, 429 rate limit) and states that failures return a short message rather than data — exactly the behavior an agent needs to handle errors.

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?

The purpose and the alternative-routing sentence come first, which is the right front-loading. The subsequent return-field enumeration and error-code list are long but each carries real information; a little tightening of the return-field sentence would earn a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming exactly what comes back (network range inetnum/inet6num and CIDR, organisation, ASN, admin/technical/abuse contacts, route objects, raw WHOIS text). Combined with the credit/auth and error details, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the 'ip' parameter already documents IPv4/IPv6 with examples and 'format' documents the json/xml enum and default. The description adds no syntax, validation, or format guidance beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the registry WHOIS record for an IPv4 or IPv6 address') and states the scope of what it returns (allocation owner). It then explicitly contrasts itself with four named siblings (ipGeolocation, ipSecurity, asnWhoisLookup, reverseDnsLookup), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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?

It gives a positive use case ('to find the owning organisation, CIDR range, AS number and abuse contact... for example to report abuse') and then routes each adjacent need to a specific alternative tool with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered explicitly.

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