OpenOSINT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_ip

Retrieve geolocation and ASN data for an IP address via ipinfo.io, enabling passive OSINT investigations with a single lookup.

Instructions

Retrieve geolocation and ASN data for an IP address via ipinfo.io. [passive] One request to ipinfo.io.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "search_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes
`json_output`	No	Return result as structured JSON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.36.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose some useful traits: the operation is passive and makes exactly one external request to ipinfo.io. It omits auth/API-key requirements, rate limits, failure behavior, and the shape of the returned data.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral tags. The ipinfo.io source is mentioned twice (once as source, once as request target), a slight redundancy, but the second mention conveys request-count 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more work. It covers the passive/single-request profile but leaves return fields, auth needs, and error handling unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the absent structured metadata.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'ip' parameter is self-evident as a string, and json_output is documented in the schema, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented half.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) plus resource (geolocation and ASN data for an IP) and names the data source (ipinfo.io). This clearly distinguishes the tool's function, though it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling search_ip2location, which likely covers similar geolocation data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The [passive] tag implies a non-intrusive reconnaissance context and 'One request to ipinfo.io' hints at cost, giving implied usage guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to alternatives like search_ip2location, search_abuseipdb, or search_whois.

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