net-mcp

Bgp Historical Lookup

bgp_historical_lookup

Retrieve historical BGP routes from RIPE RIS MRT archives for any prefix, showing routing table snapshots or announcements and withdrawals within a time window.

Instructions

Look up historical BGP routes for a prefix from MRT archive data.

Downloads and parses MRT files from RIPE RIS to show what BGP routes existed for a prefix at a specific point in time (rib) or what route changes occurred during a time window (update).

For RIB lookups: shows all routes for the prefix at that snapshot. For update lookups: shows announcements and withdrawals during the window.

Note: RIB files are ~400MB and take 30-60s to download and parse. Update files are ~3MB and parse in seconds. Prefer 'update' for narrow time windows and 'rib' for full routing state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	Yes	IP prefix in CIDR notation (e.g. '1.1.1.0/24')
`time_end`	Yes	End time in ISO 8601 format
`collector`	No	RIPE RIS collector ID (e.g. 'rrc00'). Defaults to the configured collector (rrc00).
`data_type`	No	'rib' for routing table snapshot or 'update' for BGP changes	rib
`time_start`	Yes	Start time in ISO 8601 format (e.g. '2026-03-22T00:00:00')
`max_results`	No	Maximum entries to return (default 50)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Set when an upstream lookup failed; other fields may be empty or partial.
`total`	Yes	Number of entries returned
`prefix`	Yes	Prefix that was queried
`source`	Yes	Which data source produced this result
`entries`	Yes	Matching records (capped by max_results)
`mrt_file`	No	MRT file URL that was parsed, or a file count
`time_end`	Yes	End of the queried window
`collector`	Yes	Collector that was queried
`data_type`	Yes	'rib' or 'update'
`time_start`	Yes	Start of the queried window

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool downloads and parses MRT files, explains RIB vs update result semantics, and quantifies performance differences with file sizes and processing times. It stops short of mentioning failure modes or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 organized into focused paragraphs that front-load the main purpose, then elaborate on modes and performance. It is longer than strictly necessary but each section earns its place by covering distinct, useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with two distinct modes, large downloads, and performance implications, the description covers the critical operational context: data source, mode semantics, file sizes, and processing time. The output schema covers return values, so the lack of return-format detail is not a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining what a 'rib' lookup returns versus an 'update' lookup, and by giving performance-based guidance for choosing data_type. This strengthens the meaning of the timeout and data_type parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up historical BGP routes for a prefix from MRT archive data.' It distinguishes itself from current-route siblings by emphasizing historical MRT/RIPE RIS data, and separates the RIB and update modes clearly.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool by framing it as historical MRT-archive lookup and gives explicit mode-selection guidance: 'Prefer update for narrow time windows and rib for full routing state.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like bgp_route_lookup, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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