Skip to main content
Glama
duksh

PeerGlass

by duksh

rir_network_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check network health by analyzing IP addresses, prefixes, or ASNs for RDAP ownership, BGP announcements, RPKI validity, and PeeringDB data to identify security risks and operational issues.

Instructions

Run a comprehensive parallel health check on any IP address, prefix, or ASN.

Fires all checks simultaneously (parallel asyncio): RDAP → Who owns it? Which RIR? Country? Abuse contact? BGP → Is it announced? Which ASNs? What global visibility %? RPKI → Is the announcing ASN cryptographically authorized? (prefix only) PeeringDB → Peering policy? NOC email? IXP count? (ASN only)

Synthesises a health signal dashboard: ✅ All good — registered, announced, RPKI valid ⚠️ Warning — not announced, unprotected route (no ROA), missing contacts 🚨 Critical — RPKI invalid (possible hijack!), multiple origin ASNs (MOAS)

This is your first-response tool for:

  • "Is this IP address legitimate?"

  • "Is this ASN healthy and reachable?"

  • "Is there anything suspicious about this prefix?"

  • NOC incident triage, security team first-response

Results are cached for 5 minutes (includes live BGP data).

Args: params (NetworkHealthInput): - resource (str): IP ('1.1.1.1'), prefix ('1.1.1.0/24'), or ASN ('AS13335') - response_format (str): 'markdown' (default) or 'json'

Returns: str: Health signal dashboard + RDAP + BGP + RPKI + PeeringDB sections. JSON schema: { "resource": str, "resource_type": str, "queried_at": str, "rdap_holder": str, "rdap_rir": str, "rdap_country": str, "bgp_announced": bool, "bgp_announcing_asns": [str], "bgp_visibility_pct": float, "rpki_validity": str, "peering_policy": str, "peering_ixp_count": int, "health_signals": [str], "errors": [str] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations declaring readOnly/idempotent, the description adds crucial behavioral context not present in structured fields: parallel asyncio execution model, 5-minute caching behavior with explicit stale data warning ('includes live BGP data'), and detailed synthesis logic explaining how emoji health signals (✅/⚠️/🚨) are derived from underlying check results.

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?

Well-structured with clear visual hierarchy (headers, bullet points, emoji) and front-loaded purpose. Every section earns its place: parallel execution details explain performance, health signal legend explains output semantics, and Args/Returns sections clarify interface. Minor deductions for length, though justified by tool complexity.

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?

Excellent completeness for a multi-modal tool. Includes output JSON schema in Returns section, explains the four parallel sub-operations (RDAP/BGP/RPKI/PeeringDB) and their specific outputs, documents caching duration, and provides use-case guidance. No gaps remain given the presence of output schema documentation.

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?

While the input schema technically has nested descriptions (resulting in 0% top-level coverage per context signals), the description compensates with an explicit Args block documenting both the 'resource' parameter (with format examples: '1.1.1.1', 'AS13335') and 'response_format' (explaining markdown vs JSON semantics). It could slightly improve by noting constraints like maxLength.

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 ('Run') and resource ('health check on any IP address, prefix, or ASN'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., rir_check_bgp_status, rir_query_ip) by emphasizing it is a 'comprehensive parallel' check that combines RDAP, BGP, RPKI, and PeeringDB simultaneously, positioning it as the consolidated first-response option versus individual deep-dive tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance under 'This is your first-response tool for:' with four concrete scenarios including 'Is this IP address legitimate?' and 'NOC incident triage'. This clearly signals when to use this consolidated tool versus more specific sibling tools, effectively serving as a routing guide for the agent.

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/duksh/peerglass'

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