Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

IP Reputation

intelligence_ip
Read-only

Assess any IPv4 or IPv6 address for fraud risk: detect VPNs, proxies, Tor exit nodes, datacenter hosting and bots, then return geolocation, network owner and a 0–100 threat score.

Instructions

IP Reputation. Assess the reputation of any IP address. Detects VPNs, proxies, Tor exit nodes, datacenter hosting, abusive traffic, and bots. Returns geolocation, network owner, and a 0-100 threat score. Credit cost: 2 credits per call.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "intelligence_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe IP address to analyze (IPv4 or IPv6).
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. Beyond those annotations, the description adds meaningful context: the kinds of signals detected, the returned fields, and the 2-credit cost per call. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, but it adds substantive behavioral and cost transparency.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose, detection coverage, return contents, and credit cost. The opening sentence "IP Reputation." largely repeats the title, which is a minor redundancy, but the remaining sentences are efficient and informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully lists the returned information: geolocation, network owner, detection signals, and a 0-100 threat score. It also states the credit cost. It is complete enough for a two-parameter lookup tool, though it does not mention data freshness, error behavior, or result reliability.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the query and fields parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, formatting, or filtering guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: assess the reputation of an IP address. It also enumerates what is detected (VPNs, proxies, Tor exit nodes, datacenter hosting, abusive traffic, bots) and what is returned, making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the domain/email/phone intelligence siblings.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: assess the reputation of any IP address. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or point to the intelligence_domain, intelligence_email, or intelligence_phone alternatives, but the IP-specific scope makes the intended usage clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools