entity-lookupLook up normalized RDAP data for an RIR entity handle — an organization or contact identifier such as "GOGL" or "ORG-RIEN1-RIPE". Only ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC and AFRINIC handles resolve; a domain's registrar or registrant comes from domain-lookup instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | RIR entity handle, e.g. "GOGL" (ARIN) or "ORG-RIEN1-RIPE" (RIPE). |
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is 'normalized RDAP data', that only certain RIR handles resolve, and that unsupported use cases (domain registrar/registrant) should go elsewhere. This is solid transparency for a simple read-only lookup, though it does not detail error behavior or response shape.
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 sentences with no fluff. The action and examples lead, followed by scope constraints and an explicit alternative. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information.
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 lookup tool, this is nearly complete: it explains the input format, which registries are supported, and which sibling tool to use for domains. The only mild gap is that 'normalized RDAP data' is not expanded into concrete return details, but for this low-complexity tool the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the 'handle' parameter with examples. The description adds the RIR scope and the 'organization or contact identifier' context, but these are largely restatements of what the schema plus tool purpose imply. It does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Look up normalized RDAP data for an RIR entity handle.' It gives concrete examples ('GOGL', 'ORG-RIEN1-RIPE') and explicitly distinguishes itself from domain-lookup, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool does and what it does not do.
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 when this tool applies: only ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, and AFRINIC entity handles resolve. It also names the alternative for domain registrar/registrant lookups ('comes from domain-lookup instead'), giving clear routing guidance without requiring the agent to infer from sibling names.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct RDAP object type—ASN, domain, batch domain, entity handle, IP, nameserver, or TLD metadata—so an agent can clearly select the right one. The only potential overlap, domain-lookup versus bulk-domain-lookup, is explicitly differentiated as single versus pooled lookup.
Six tools follow a consistent object-lookup pattern with snake_case, making the set predictable. The tlds tool breaks the pattern by using a bare noun instead of something like list-tlds or tld-lookup, but the deviation is minor and still readable.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for an RDAP-focused API: one tool per primary RDAP object type plus a batch variant and a metadata tool. There is no bloat or redundancy.
The surface covers the core RDAP object classes—IP networks, ASNs, domains, nameservers, and entities—plus useful TLD metadata and batch lookup functionality. As a read-only RDAP service, it has no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.