ip-lookupLook up normalized RDAP allocation data (network range, holder, country, status) for an IP address or CIDR block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. "8.8.8.8" or "2001:4860:4860::8888". | |
| prefix | No | Optional CIDR prefix length, e.g. 24. Must be 0-32 for IPv4 or 0-128 for IPv6. |
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 empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' signals a read-only retrieval and 'normalized' discloses a transformation, while the parenthetical names the output fields. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool this is not a major gap.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words; the action, output data, and input form are all front-loaded and clearly structured.
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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the input form and enumerates the return fields. It omits failure behavior and source details, but those are secondary for invoking the tool.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by stating the ip parameter accepts 'an IP address or CIDR block', which the schema's ip description ('IPv4 or IPv6 address') does not explicitly convey.
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 verb ('Look up') and resource ('normalized RDAP allocation data') with the exact scope ('network range, holder, country, status'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools by the explicit IP/CIDR target, unlike domain or ASN lookups.
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 phrase 'for an IP address or CIDR block' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the domain-of-use apparent.
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.