IPLocate

Official

by iplocate

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct focus within IP address lookup, targeting specific aspects like abuse contacts, company details, location, network info, and privacy checks. However, there is some overlap as 'lookup_ip_address_details' appears to encompass multiple other tools' functionalities, which could cause confusion about when to use it versus the specialized tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'lookup_ip_address_' prefix with a descriptive suffix (e.g., 'abuse_contacts', 'company', 'details'), using snake_case uniformly throughout. This predictable pattern makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for IP address information lookup, covering key aspects like geolocation, network details, privacy, and abuse contacts. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for IP address lookup, including geolocation, network, company, privacy, and abuse contacts, with no obvious gaps in core functionality. A minor gap is the lack of tools for bulk lookups or historical data, but agents can handle single-address queries effectively.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 29, 2025
- 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality and default behavior (looking up caller's IP if none provided), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.
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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return data, while the second explains parameter behavior and defaults. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameter behavior, but doesn't describe the return format or potential limitations. For a lookup tool with no output schema, more detail about response structure would be helpful.
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 fully documents the single parameter. The description mentions the same information about the parameter (IPv4/IPv6 address, default to caller's IP if not provided) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Get company/organization information') and resource ('for an IP address'), including what information is returned ('company name, domain, and type of organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on company/organization data rather than abuse contacts, details, location, network, or privacy information.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for IP address company lookups, with the ability to look up any IPv4/IPv6 address or the caller's own IP if no address is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the sibling names imply different data types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the default behavior when no IP is provided (returns caller's IP info) and specifies what information is included. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details that would be valuable for an agent.
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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second explains the parameter behavior. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important information.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and parameter behavior. However, it doesn't describe the response structure or format, which would be important for an agent to understand what to expect from the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds valuable context by explaining the optional nature of the parameter and the default behavior when omitted, which goes beyond the schema's technical specification.
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 specific action ('Get network and ASN information'), the resource ('for an IP address'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact data returned (network operator, route, regional registry). It explicitly mentions both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, making the scope unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for network/ASN info) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the type of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different information needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool checks for (VPN/proxy detection, abuse blocklist status, hosting provider identification) and the fallback behavior when no IP is provided. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, accuracy limitations, or what format the results will be in.
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 with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and capabilities, while the second sentence explains parameter behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (privacy/security checking with fallback behavior) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool checks for and parameter behavior, but doesn't describe the format or structure of results, which is a significant gap since there's no output schema to compensate.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of the parameter ('IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up') and clarifying the special case behavior ('If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address'), which goes beyond the schema's technical specification.
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 with specific verbs ('Check whether an IP address is detected as...') and resources ('VPN, proxy, other anonymizing service; abuse blocklist; hosting provider'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on privacy/security detection rather than contacts, company, details, location, or network information.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Check whether an IP address is detected as...') and includes a specific usage scenario ('or your own IP if no address is provided'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different types of IP lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by explaining what information is returned (email, phone, address) and the default behavior when no IP is provided. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential limitations of the data source.
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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and what's included, while the second explains parameter behavior and default case. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what information it returns, and parameter behavior. The main gap is lack of information about response format or potential limitations.
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 parameter completely. The description adds minimal value by restating that it accepts IPv4/IPv6 addresses and explaining the default behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.
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 with specific verbs ('Get abuse contact information') and resources ('IP address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on abuse contacts rather than company, details, location, network, or privacy information.
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 explicitly states when to use it ('to report malicious activity') and provides clear context on when-not-to-use alternatives by specifying its unique focus on abuse contacts. It also explains the default behavior when no IP is provided, which helps differentiate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's scope (IPv4/IPv6 addresses, default to caller's IP) and the types of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, accuracy, or error handling for invalid inputs, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotation 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?
The description is perfectly front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence establishes the comprehensive scope, and the second sentence clarifies input flexibility and default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details about response format, error conditions, or data sources to achieve full completeness for agent invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool can look up 'any IPv4 or IPv6 address' and clarifies the default behavior when no address is provided ('returns information about the caller's IP address'), which complements the schema's parameter description. This additional semantic context justifies a score above baseline.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about an IP address') with specific details about what information is included (geolocation, network details, privacy/security information, company data, and abuse contacts). It explicitly distinguishes this comprehensive tool from its specialized sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like abuse contacts, company, location, network, or privacy.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states that this tool provides 'comprehensive information' covering multiple aspects, while the sibling tools (lookup_ip_address_abuse_contacts, lookup_ip_address_company, etc.) are specialized for specific data types. It also clarifies the default behavior when no IP is provided (returns caller's IP information).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it can handle both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, and it defaults to returning the caller's IP if no address is provided. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose and key details, and the second sentence adds important behavioral context (address types and default). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of geographic data) and error handling, which could be improved for full 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (ip). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that the parameter is for IPv4/IPv6 addresses and the default behavior, 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 with a specific verb ('Get geographic location information') and resource ('for an IP address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact type of information returned (country, city, coordinates, timezone, postal code). It explicitly mentions what makes it different from other lookup tools that focus on abuse contacts, company details, network info, privacy, or general details.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies that this tool is for geographic location information, and by listing the sibling tools (e.g., lookup_ip_address_abuse_contacts), it implies alternatives for other types of IP data. It also clearly states when to use it ('if no address is provided' returns caller's IP info), though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling context suffices.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-iplocate MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-iplocate MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate'

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