BorrowIP MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking IP, fetching, getting proxy URL, health check, listing, and status. No two tools perform the same function, making it clear for an agent which tool to use.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tools start with 'borrowip_', but the suffix patterns vary: verb_noun (check_ip, get_proxy, list_proxies), verb only (fetch), noun (status), and compound noun (health_check). This inconsistency could confuse an agent slightly.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a proxy management server. Each tool serves a necessary function without being too few or too many.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core proxy workflows: connecting (via status), listing, validating (check_ip, health_check), and using (fetch, get_proxy). Missing a dedicated disconnect tool is a minor gap but agents can work around it.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a simple read-only list, basic transparency is adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second details output format. No fluff, front-loaded key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (list all connected proxies). Output schema exists, and description summarizes return fields. No missing context for intended use.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). Baseline 4 for no parameters. Description adds output field explanation, providing meaning beyond schema.
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 clearly states 'List all connected mobile proxies with details' and enumerates specific fields (code, SOCKS5 URL, IP, age, alive status). It distinguishes from siblings like borrowip_get_proxy and borrowip_check_ip by focusing on listing all proxies.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., borrowip_get_proxy for a single proxy). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action and key parameter, but does not mention errors, rate limits, or what happens if proxy is unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences plus arg description; no wasted words; front-loaded with main purpose.
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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter adequately, though it could mention return type (likely IP). Still, it's mostly complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the 'key' parameter's optionality and default behavior (uses first available proxy), adding value beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'external IP address of the mobile proxy', and distinguishes from siblings like borrowip_fetch or borrowip_get_proxy by focusing on IP verification.
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 a clear use case ('verify the proxy is working and see which IP/cellular network is being used') but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the return value and usage but does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error behavior (e.g., invalid key). The 'get' verb implies non-destructive action but is not explicit.
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 well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then providing return format and usage examples. It is concise without unnecessary repetition, though the examples could be slightly trimmed without loss of clarity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return type, usage, and parameter semantics. It lacks error handling details and limitations, but for a straightforward 'get' tool, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'key' parameter: its optional nature, format (e.g., BIP-xxxxxx), and default behavior (uses first available). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
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 clearly states 'Get a ready-to-use SOCKS5 proxy URL' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like borrowip_list_proxies (which lists proxies) and borrowip_fetch by focusing on obtaining a single usable proxy URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage examples for CloakBrowser, curl, and requests, and explains the 'key' parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like borrowip_list_proxies or borrowip_fetch, nor does it mention scenarios where the tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the request goes through the phone's cellular connection and explains the key parameter's fallback behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if no proxy is available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage scenario, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, when to use, and parameters adequately. It could mention error handling, but the core information is present.
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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: url as the URL to fetch and key as an optional connection code defaulting to first available proxy. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a URL through a mobile proxy, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('URL via mobile proxy'). This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like borrowip_check_ip or borrowip_list_proxies.
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 explicitly says to use when a website blocks the server/VPS IP due to Cloudflare, rate limits, or geo-blocks. It does not mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral traits: tests SOCKS5 port openness and internet reachability, has a 3s timeout, and is non-destructive. The output schema exists so return format explanation is not required. It could mention if the check affects proxy state, but it is likely read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three lines of purpose and behavior, plus a separate Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it tests, timeout, comparison to a sibling, and parameter behavior. It does not fully explain error conditions or preconditions, but it is adequate for a health-check tool.
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?
The schema provides no description for the key parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating 'Optional connection code' and 'If omitted, checks first available proxy', which clarifies the parameter's role and default behavior. More detail on the format of the connection code would improve.
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 clearly states it is a 'quick liveness check' for the proxy tunnel, testing if the SOCKS5 port is open and can reach the internet. It distinguishes itself from sibling borrowip_fetch by noting it is much faster (3s vs 30s timeout), and the verb 'check' combined with 'proxy tunnel' makes the resource specific.
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 explicitly states it is faster than borrowip_fetch, guiding agents to use this for quick health checks instead. It also explains when to use the optional key parameter versus omitting it. However, it does not provide guidance for when to use other siblings like borrowip_check_ip or borrowip_status, so it lacks complete exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description fully carries burden. It details exactly what is returned (pair code, proxy list, Termux command if none) and includes an example output, ensuring full transparency of behavior.
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?
Description is concise with key info front-loaded. Example output adds value but is not excessive. Could be slightly more terse, but overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, including edge cases like no proxies. Complete for its complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 clearly states the tool checks BorrowIP status, returns pair code and connected proxies with SOCKS5 ports, and distinguishes itself by being the first step to run. It differentiates from siblings like borrowip_fetch or borrowip_get_proxy by emphasizing its role as an initial status check.
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?
Explicitly says 'ALWAYS run this first', providing clear usage guidance. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the 'first' directive effectively communicates when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![borrowip MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wahyuzero/borrowip/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wahyuzero/borrowip)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![borrowip MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wahyuzero/borrowip/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wahyuzero/borrowip)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/wahyuzero/borrowip'

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