check_ipCheck whether a given IPv4 is on the current blocklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | The IPv4 address queried | |
| listed | Yes | Whether the IP is on the blocklist | |
| entries | Yes | Matching blocklist entries for this IP |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ip": "192.168.1.100"
+ },
+ {
+ "ip": "10.0.0.50"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "entries": {
+ "description": "Matching blocklist entries for this IP",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "as_name": {
+ "description": "Autonomous System name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "as_number": {
+ "description": "Autonomous System number",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "country": {
+ "description": "Country code or name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "first_seen": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of first observation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hostname": {
+ "description": "Associated hostname",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ip_address": {
+ "description": "IP address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "last_online": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of last online status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "malware": {
+ "description": "Associated malware family name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "port": {
+ "description": "Port number",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Status (e.g. online, offline)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ip_address"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "ip": {
+ "description": "The IPv4 address queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "listed": {
+ "description": "Whether the IP is on the blocklist",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ip",
+ "listed",
+ "entries"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds context about 'current blocklist', implying dynamic state. No contradictions, but more explicit behavioral details (e.g., what 'blocklist' means) could be added.
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?
One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with verb. Perfectly concise.
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 simple check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and input. No gaps for the agent to infer.
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 0%, so the description compensates by specifying 'IPv4', clarifying the format beyond the string type in the schema. Examples also help, but description adds essential constraint.
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 states the verb 'check' and the resource 'IPv4 on the current blocklist', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'validate_claim' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.
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 use case (checking if an IPv4 is blocklisted) and implies context, but does not provide when-not or alternatives. Given no direct sibling overlap, this is acceptable.
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 near-duplicate clusters exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to the stable router right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,767-tool catalog, and six polymarket_* tools overlap heavily in surfacing bet/edge opportunities. The blocklist tools (list, recent, aggressive) are only weakly distinguished by time window and confidence, requiring careful reading to select correctly.
Naming mixes several incompatible conventions: bare adjectives/nouns for blocklist tools (aggressive, list, recent), brand-prefixed compounds (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_feedback), verb_noun pairs (check_ip, resolve_entity), and noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research). The server name 'Feodotracker' appears nowhere in the tool names, and the blocklist cluster uses a completely different style from the data cluster.
At 35 tools, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', but the deeper issue is that roughly 31 tools serve a general data-lookup/prediction-market platform while only 4 serve the server's stated Feodotracker blocklist purpose. The count reflects two unrelated products merged into one MCP server rather than a well-scoped tool surface.
For the named Feodotracker domain, the surface is thin: list/check/recent cover basic blocklist access but miss historical lookups, per-entry threat intel, or export formats that a botnet tracker would need. For the data-lookup domain the 31-tool suite is impressively complete, but the two domains don't form a coherent whole—each leaves the other's lifecycle half-served.