Skip to main content
Glama
alberthild

ShieldAPI MCP

shieldapi.check_ip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check IP reputation by analyzing blacklists, detecting Tor exit nodes, and performing reverse DNS lookups to assess security risks.

Instructions

Check IP reputation: blacklists, Tor exit node detection, reverse DNS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 address to check (e.g. 8.8.8.8)

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:179-187 (registration)
    The tool 'shieldapi.check_ip' is registered dynamically within this loop, utilizing the 'TOOLS' definition map and calling the 'callShieldApi' helper function.
    for (const [name, def] of Object.entries(TOOLS)) {
      server.tool(
        name,
        def.description,
        { [def.param]: z.string().describe(def.paramDesc) },
        { ...readOnlyAnnotations, title: TOOL_TITLES[name] || name },
        async (params) => formatResult(await callShieldApi(def.endpoint, params as Record<string, string>))
      );
    }
  • This is the generic handler function that executes the API call for 'shieldapi.check_ip' (and other GET tools) by appending the endpoint and query parameters to the SHIELDAPI_URL.
    async function callShieldApi(endpoint: string, params: Record<string, string>): Promise<unknown> {
      const url = new URL(`${SHIELDAPI_URL}/api/${endpoint}`);
      for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
        url.searchParams.set(key, value);
      }
      if (demoMode) {
        url.searchParams.set('demo', 'true');
      }
    
      const response = await paymentFetch(url.toString());
      if (!response.ok) {
        const body = await response.text();
        throw new Error(`ShieldAPI ${endpoint} failed (${response.status}): ${body.substring(0, 200)}`);
      }
      return response.json();
    }
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and scope (openWorld). The description adds valuable behavioral specifics by listing the exact reputation checks performed (blacklist status, Tor exit node classification, reverse DNS), which helps agents understand the tool's coverage.

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?

Extremely concise at nine words. The colon structure front-loads the action ('Check IP reputation') and efficiently lists the specific detection capabilities without redundancy.

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?

While appropriate for a single-parameter lookup tool, the description omits the output format/reputation scoring system. Given the absence of an output schema, the lack of return value documentation leaves a gap in contextual completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'ip' parameter (including format example), the schema carries the semantic load. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verbs ('Check') and resources ('IP reputation') and enumerates the specific checks performed (blacklists, Tor detection, reverse DNS). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'check_domain' or 'full_scan' that might overlap in functionality.

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. Given the presence of siblings like 'check_domain', 'full_scan', and other check utilities, there is a notable absence of selection criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alberthild/shield-api-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server