Skip to main content
Glama
dadepo

WHOIS MCP Server

by dadepo

arin_validate_route_object

Validate route object registration in the ARIN database for North American networks. Check if a specific IP prefix and origin ASN pair exists to verify BGP route registration and IRR coverage.

Instructions

PREFERRED TOOL for validating route object registration in the ARIN database. This tool is specifically for the ARIN RIR (North America region - United States, Canada, parts of Caribbean). Use this when you need to CHECK, VERIFY, or VALIDATE if a route object exists for a prefix-ASN pair in ARIN. Keywords: 'route validation', 'check route', 'verify route', 'route exists', 'BGP security', 'route filtering', 'IRR coverage', 'RPKI validation'. Automatically handles IPv4/IPv6 detection and returns simple exists/not-found status. Much faster and more accurate than parsing raw WHOIS data for route validation in ARIN database.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefixYesIP prefix to CHECK/VALIDATE for route object registration in ARIN database. Use CIDR notation like '192.0.2.0/24' for IPv4 or '2001:db8::/32' for IPv6. Use this when you need to VERIFY if a prefix has a registered route object in the ARIN IRR database.
origin_asnYesOrigin ASN number to VALIDATE/CHECK for route coverage (without 'AS' prefix). For example, use 64496 to VERIFY if AS64496 has a route object registered for the specified prefix. This VALIDATES proper BGP route registration and IRR coverage.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the tool is for ARIN (North America region), handles IPv4/IPv6 detection automatically, returns simple exists/not-found status, and is optimized for speed and accuracy compared to raw WHOIS parsing. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information (purpose, region, when to use). However, the keyword list ('Keywords: ...') is somewhat redundant and could be more integrated into the flow, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly explains purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and distinguishes from alternatives, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'prefix-ASN pair' and 'IPv4/IPv6 detection', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'validating route object registration in the ARIN database' and specifies it's for 'CHECK, VERIFY, or VALIDATE if a route object exists for a prefix-ASN pair in ARIN'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning ARIN (North America region) and contrasting with 'ripe_validate_route_object' for a different RIR.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'PREFERRED TOOL for validating route object registration in the ARIN database', 'Use this when you need to CHECK, VERIFY, or VALIDATE if a route object exists for a prefix-ASN pair in ARIN', and contrasts with alternatives by stating it's 'Much faster and more accurate than parsing raw WHOIS data for route validation in ARIN database'.

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/dadepo/whois-mcp'

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