entityEntity by handle. Pass base RDAP url to skip bootstrap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| handle | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "handle": "ARIN-REGISTRY"
+ },
+ {
+ "base": "https://rdap.arin.net/registry",
+ "handle": "GOOGLE-2-ARIN"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "RDAP entity record by handle",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context about skipping bootstrap when a base URL is provided, enhancing transparency beyond 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with main action. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds 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?
Given the simple tool (2 parameters, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. Could add more detail about return values but output schema likely covers that.
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 description must compensate. It explains 'handle' and 'base' implicitly through examples and context, but does not fully define them or their constraints.
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 states it retrieves entity information by handle and can skip bootstrap with a base URL. Purpose is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like entity_profile or resolve_entity.
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 versus alternatives. The hint about skipping bootstrap is only partially helpful and does not provide usage context.
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.
The RDAP tools (domain, ip, asn, nameserver, entity) are distinct, but the larger Pipeworx collection creates significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap.
Most tools use snake_case with a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, recent_changes), but the set mixes short single nouns (domain, ip, asn, entity) with compound names, and there are oddities like generate_llms_txt and ask_pipeworx_grounded that deviate from a clear uniform convention.
At 36 tools, the server is far heavier than expected for an RDAP service. The RDAP core only needs ~5 tools; the rest are an unrelated Pipeworx mega-suite (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback) that makes the server feel like a dumping ground rather than a focused toolset.
For the RDAP portion, coverage is complete: domain, IP, ASN, nameserver, and entity records are all present. The broader Pipeworx features also cover their own workflows (query, research, comparison, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle), but the server's stated RDAP identity is muddied by these extras, and some integration points (e.g., no direct update for RDAP data, which is read-only anyway) are inherent limitations.