lookup_ipFull IP intelligence for an IPv4 or IPv6 address — geolocation (country, city, state, postal code, lat/long, timezone, local time), ISP/ASN/org, and security risk flags (VPN, proxy, Tor, datacenter, mobile + a 0-100 risk score). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | An IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up, e.g. "8.8.8.8" or "2606:4700:4700::1111". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ip": "8.8.8.8"
+ },
+ {
+ "ip": "2606:4700:4700::1111"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (geolocation, ISP, risk score), which is not present in annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Description is a single sentence that packs substantial information but remains readable. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list) but still concise and effective.
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?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the expected return data: geolocation details, ISP/ASN/org, and security risk flags with a risk score. This is complete for a lookup tool with one parameter.
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% with a clear description for the 'ip' parameter and examples. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides 'full IP intelligence' for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, listing specific data categories like geolocation, ISP/ASN/org, and security risk flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a dedicated IP lookup tool with no direct competitor in the sibling list.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While 'Keyless' implies ease of use, there is no mention of when to prefer this over potential overlapping tools like 'check_risk' or 'entity_profile'. The description could benefit from stating typical use cases or exclusions.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct, but the existence of multiple ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the overlapping check_risk/lookup_ip tools create meaningful selection ambiguity. Description differentiation helps but doesn't fully resolve it.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary between verb-noun (lookup_ip, compare_entities), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and domain-prefixed names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). It's readable but not a consistent pattern.
At 33 tools the surface is large, with duplicated ask_pipeworx variants, a modest IP lookup core, and a large number of meta/management tools (memory, subscriptions, onboarding, feedback). Even with a broad scope this feels overloaded, and it is well above the 25+ threshold.
The query domain is well covered: entity profiles, comparison, claim validation, deep research, changes, plus memory and subscription management. Minor gaps exist (no direct subscription update, no raw citation fetch utility), but agents can work around them.