Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Exchanges

search_exchanges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find internet exchanges (IXes) in PeeringDB by name, city, or country (2-letter code). Returns the IX name, location, continent region, member network count, and website. Provide at least one of query/city/country. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity name.
limitNoMax results (default 20).
queryNoIX name (matches names containing this text).
countryNo2-letter ISO country code, e.g. US, DE, GB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "DE-CIX"
+  },
+  {
+    "city": "Frankfurt",
+    "country": "DE"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by stating 'Keyless' (auth not required) and listing the exact return fields (name, location, continent region, member network count, website), which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by output details and a usage requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and robust annotations, the description is complete enough. It communicates the search criteria, required input constraint, return fields, and keyless access. There is no output schema, but the listed return fields suffice for this straightforward 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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint not captured by the schema: 'Provide at least one of query/city/country.' This is a meaningful semantic addition that helps ensure correct invocation.

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's function: 'Find internet exchanges (IXes) in PeeringDB by name, city, or country' and lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_facilities and search_networks by specifying the exact resource (IXes).

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 provides clear usage context: it searches by name, city, or country, and explicitly requires 'at least one of query/city/country.' It also notes the tool is 'Keyless,' indicating no API key is needed. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like search_facilities or search_networks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Peeringdb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve question-answering/discovery; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyze prediction markets; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily. Only the three PeeringDB search tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb-led snake_case (search_networks, validate_claim, subscribe) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts) and inconsistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk vs polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent verb_noun pattern is present.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a coherent surface, especially since the server is named 'Peeringdb' but only 3 of 34 tools relate to PeeringDB. The Pipeworx/Prediction-market/memory/AI-visibility tools form several distinct sub-domains that would be better split into separate servers or consolidated.

Completeness2/5

For PeeringDB, only search_exchanges/facilities/networks exist—no get-by-id, no facility/network details beyond search results, and no read/update operations. For the broader Pipeworx domain, coverage is fragmented: many meta-tools overlap while some obvious operations (e.g., updating a saved memory, deeper entity relationships) are missing. The domain is poorly scoped, making completeness hard to assess.

Resources