Skip to main content
Glama
ipfind

IP Find

Official
by ipfind
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_api_usage monitors API usage, get_ip_location finds the location of a specified IP, and get_my_location finds the location of the current IP. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'get_' and descriptive nouns (api_usage, ip_location, my_location). This makes the tools predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for IP location and API usage tracking. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant function, making the count appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover core IP location queries (for specified and current IPs) and API usage monitoring, which are essential for the server's purpose. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for bulk IP lookups or historical data, but the basic functionality is complete.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get the usage of the API') without detailing aspects like whether it requires authentication, returns real-time or historical data, includes rate limits, or what format the usage data is in. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get the usage of the API') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'usage' entails (e.g., metrics, limits, time periods) or the return format, which is crucial for an API usage tool. The simplicity of the tool (0 parameters) doesn't fully compensate for these missing behavioral details.

    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?

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. It earns a baseline score of 4 for not needing to compensate for any parameter gaps.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get the usage of the API', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (get_ip_location, get_my_location), which are unrelated location tools, so there's no need for sibling differentiation. The purpose is straightforward but somewhat generic.

    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 or in what context. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, timing, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what data sources it uses, accuracy considerations, or what happens with invalid IP addresses. Significant behavioral context is missing.

    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?

    The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and immediately communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a geolocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what location data is returned (coordinates, city, country, etc.), accuracy considerations, data source limitations, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outputs.

    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%, so the schema already documents the single 'ipAddress' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as IP format requirements (IPv4 vs IPv6) or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the work.

    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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('location of an IP address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_location' which appears to serve a similar location-related function, preventing a perfect score.

    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 like 'get_my_location' (which presumably gets the user's own location). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for this IP geolocation tool.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, accuracy limitations, or what 'location' entails (e.g., coordinates, city). The agent lacks context on reliability or constraints.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a location-fetching tool. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format, data fields), potential errors, or behavioral nuances like IP-based limitations, leaving the agent under-informed.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but this is appropriate given the empty schema, meeting the baseline for tools without parameters.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('location of the current IP address'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_ip_location' by specifying 'current IP address' rather than a general IP lookup, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_api_usage'.

    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 like 'get_ip_location' or 'get_api_usage'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ipfind-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ipfind-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/ipfind/ipfind-mcp-server'

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