Skip to main content
Glama
duksh

PeerGlass

by duksh

rir_prefix_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch hierarchical IP prefix data including current holder, announcement status, parent blocks, and child assignments to analyze network ownership and routing.

Instructions

Fetch a rich hierarchical overview of an IP prefix.

IP address space is organized in a tree structure:

  • A /8 contains 256 /16s, each /16 contains 256 /24s, and so on.

  • 'Less-specific' = the parent block this prefix was carved from.

  • 'More-specific' = smaller blocks assigned within this prefix.

Think of it like a real estate map: Less-specific = the city block (containing your property) The prefix itself = your land parcel More-specific = subdivisions within your parcel

This tool fetches all three layers in parallel (3 RIPE Stat API calls simultaneously) and returns a unified view including:

  • Current holder and announcement status

  • Which ASN(s) are announcing it (multiple = potential hijack)

  • All less-specific (parent) prefixes up the tree

  • All more-specific (child) prefixes within the block

Combine with rir_check_rpki to validate the announcing ASN. Results are cached for 1 hour.

Args: params (PrefixOverviewInput): - prefix (str): IP prefix in CIDR notation (e.g. '1.1.1.0/24') - response_format (str): 'markdown' (default) or 'json'

Returns: str: Holder info, BGP status, and full prefix hierarchy table. JSON schema: { "prefix": str, "holder": str, "rir": str, "country": str, "announced": bool, "announcing_asns": [str], "allocation_status": str, "related_prefixes": [{"prefix": str, "relationship": str, "holder": str, "origin_asn": str}], "errors": [str] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent status, but description adds critical behavioral context: makes '3 RIPE Stat API calls simultaneously,' has '1 hour' cache duration, and explains the tree traversal logic (parent/child relationships) that annotations don't cover.

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 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. The real estate analogy, while adding length, efficiently conveys complex IP hierarchy concepts. Every sentence earns its place by explaining scope (3 layers), behavior (parallel calls), or output format.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex tool: explains hierarchical concepts, documents the JSON return schema inline, specifies caching behavior, and identifies integration points with sibling tools. Complete given the rich output schema and multi-API-call implementation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% (top-level 'params' lacks description), the description compensates by documenting both nested parameters under 'Args:' with examples ('1.1.1.0/24') and valid values ('markdown' or 'json'), effectively clarifying the wrapped schema structure.

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?

Description explicitly states it 'fetches a rich hierarchical overview' distinguishing it from simple lookups. The real estate analogy and explicit mention of 'less-specific' vs 'more-specific' clearly differentiate this from siblings like rir_query_ip or rir_check_bgp_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly recommends combining with 'rir_check_rpki to validate the announcing ASN,' providing clear sibling tool coordination. Mentions 1-hour caching implying refresh behavior. Could be improved by contrasting with rir_query_ip for non-hierarchical lookups.

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