Fetch GeoIP data to identify the geographic location of an IP address. Get country, region, and other location details for network diagnostics or content customization.
Get GeoIP.
GET /geoip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds minimal context, but with no parameters and high annotation coverage, the burden is reduced. It doesn't contradict annotations and is consistent with a read operation.
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?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but the inclusion of 'GET /geoip' adds little value since the tool name already suggests the endpoint. It is efficiently structured but may be under-specified in terms of helpful context.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description might be considered minimally adequate. However, it lacks any explanation of what the GeoIP data represents or how it might be used, which could be valuable to an agent selecting this tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description need not add parameter meaning since the tool takes no inputs, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Get GeoIP' states a clear verb and resource, which is adequate, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as list_ip or list_identity, which could serve related purposes. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the basic function but is minimal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply repeats the endpoint without mentioning contexts or exclusions. An agent would have no help deciding between list_geoip and list_ip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.