reverse_ipReverse IP lookup: list domains that have been hosted on a given IP address. 특정 IP에 등록된 도메인 이력 정보를 조회합니다. IP 주소 형식만 허용됩니다. [호출당 100포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | 검색할 IP 주소 (예: 121.140.146.38) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the lookup returns domain history, explicitly restricts input to IP address format, and states a per-call cost of 100 points. These details help the agent anticipate constraints and side effects without contradicting the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation in English, followed by a Korean restatement, an input constraint, and cost. The bilingual redundancy is slightly unnecessary but does not bloat the entry; every part adds functional value.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the operation, input constraint, cost, and expected result type (list of domains). It omits pagination or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple lookup of this nature.
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 100% and the ip parameter already includes an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the explicit constraint that only IP address format is accepted, reinforcing input validation semantics beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse IP lookup: list domains that have been hosted on a given IP address.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like nslookup and whois by focusing on reverse mapping from IP to domains, and the Korean line reinforces the historical domain registration aspect.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ip_history, nslookup, or whois. The only usage-related statement is the input constraint 'IP 주소 형식만 허용됩니다' (only IP address format is allowed), which addresses validation rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools target the same documents with unclear boundaries: identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, and identity_document_id_card all accept a resident registration card image but differ in verification vs extraction vs masking, which agents will struggle to distinguish. The identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5 vs ocr_identi1-5 clusters are especially confusing, despite some helpful descriptions.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (check_phone_valid, search_juso, pdf_merge), some are bare nouns (whois, nslookup, ocr, stt), and identity tools use three parallel schemes (identi_card1, identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, identity_document_id_card) with no clear pattern. No single convention is followed across the toolset.
88 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning identity verification, parcel tracking, LLM chat, image generation, PDF conversion, TTS, and network lookups. This is an API marketplace dump rather than a focused toolset, and the number far exceeds any reasonable scope.
The server's scope is unbounded, so it has gaps everywhere: no video transcription shortcut, no PDF splitting, no batch cancellation for images (only TTS), and identity clusters lack clear differentiation between verify/extract/mask workflows. Some subdomains like TTS have a full lifecycle, but overall the coverage is scattered and incomplete for the implied breadth.