Risk profile for an IP address: geolocation and network (ASN/ISP/org) plus two abuse signals - whether it is a known Tor exit node, and whether it appears on the abuse.ch Feodo botnet command-and-control blocklist. For fraud, abuse, and security screening. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address to screen. |
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?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: exact data sources/signals included and the fact that no API key is required. This is more than minimal and helps the agent anticipate what the response will cover.
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 one dense, well-structured sentence that lists the key outputs and finishes with the supported use case and keyless note. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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 is complete enough: it specifies the input, the returned data categories, the intended use, and authentication expectations. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool with no missing critical information.
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 single parameter 'ip' is already described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address to screen.' The description adds context about how the IP is used (risk screening) but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as producing a risk profile for an IP address, enumerating the exact data categories: geolocation, network info, Tor exit node status, and Feodo botnet blocklist status. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like rdap_ip by focusing on abuse-risk signals rather than raw registration data.
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?
The description explicitly states the intended use case: 'For fraud, abuse, and security screening.' This gives clear context for when to select the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.
294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.
The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.