Skip to main content
Glama

whois_ip

Retrieve WHOIS information for an IP address to identify ownership, registration dates, and network details. Use this tool to investigate IP origins and network administration.

Instructions

Looksup whois information about the IP

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the whois_ip tool: calls whoisIp from external library, formats result as text content or error.
    async ({ ip }) => {
      try {
        const result = await whoisIp(ip);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `IP whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
        };
      } catch (err: unknown) {
        const error = err as Error;
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema for whois_ip tool using Zod to validate 'ip' parameter as a valid IP address.
    { ip: z.string().ip() },
  • src/index.ts:53-71 (registration)
    Registration of the 'whois_ip' tool with the MCP server using server.tool(name, description, schema, handler).
    server.tool(
      'whois_ip',
      'Looksup whois information about the IP',
      { ip: z.string().ip() },
      async ({ ip }) => {
        try {
          const result = await whoisIp(ip);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `IP whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
          };
        } catch (err: unknown) {
          const error = err as Error;
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
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. It mentions 'whois information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only query, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague to provide adequate transparency 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the typo ('looksup') slightly detracts from clarity. There's no wasted text, but it could be more polished.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output expectations, and usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be effective.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'ip' parameter is for looking up whois information, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema's format hints (IPv4/IPv6) provide. The description is minimal and doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the IP'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying IP lookup rather than AS, domain, or TLD lookups. However, 'looksup' contains a typo and could be more precise about what 'whois information' entails.

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 the sibling tools (whois_as, whois_domain, whois_tld). It implies usage for IPs but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other whois tools based on input type.

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/modelcontextprotocol-servers/whois-mcp'

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