Resolve an IP or AS number to its announcing network, holder, and all associated prefixes using RIPEstat data.
Look up an IP or AS number (e.g. "AS13335") via RIPEstat: which AS announces it, who holds the AS and every prefix it announces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| include_prefixes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the lookup uses RIPEstat and lists the output components, but it does not mention rate limits, response size (e.g., 'every prefix' could be large), or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the action, resource, data source, and expected output with an example. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the query semantics and return content, but it omits include_prefixes and any warning about potentially large prefix lists. An agent can make a basic call but lacks full context for optional behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaning for the required query parameter by specifying 'IP or AS number' with an example. It does not explain include_prefixes, though the default true aligns with the mention of 'every prefix'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Look up') and resource ('IP or AS number'), and enumerates the returned data: announcing AS, holder, and prefixes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ip_whois or dns_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the intended use case—resolving IP/AS numbers to AS ownership and prefix data via RIPEstat—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare against sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.