Сервер протокола контекста модели (MCP) для ProxyClaw от IPLoop.
Маршрутизируйте веб-запросы через 175+ млн резидентских IP-адресов в 195+ странах — прямо из Claude Desktop, Cursor, Zed или любого другого MCP-совместимого клиента.
Единственная сеть резидентских прокси с MCP-сервером. Ваш ИИ теперь может просматривать сайты с реальных домашних адресов, а не из дата-центров.
195+ стран — маршрутизация запросов через реальные резидентские IP-адреса
Обход антибот-систем — Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX не заметят разницы
Нулевая настройка — одна переменная окружения, четыре мощных инструмента
Закрепленные сессии — один и тот же IP для нескольких запросов
Таргетинг по городам и провайдерам — высокая точность, когда это необходимо
Related MCP server: Novada Proxy
Мы предлагаем два MCP-сервера. Выбирайте в зависимости от ваших задач:
Этот репозиторий (Node.js) | ||
Функционал | Прокси-маршрутизация + fetch | Полный антибот + headless-рендеринг + структурированное извлечение |
Для чего лучше | Простые запросы, геотаргетинг | Парсинг защищенных сайтов (Amazon, eBay, LinkedIn), JS-страниц |
Антидетекция | Заголовки отпечатков Chrome | TLS JA3-спуфинг + антидетекция Playwright |
Установка |
|
|
Инструменты | 4 (fetch, check_ip, list_countries, rotate) | 6 (+ stealth fetch, render, scrape, extract) |
→ Используйте Node.js, если вам нужно просто маршрутизировать запросы через резидентские IP.
→ Используйте Python, если вы парсите сложные цели (Cloudflare, SPA, React-сайты) или вам нужно структурированное извлечение данных с 60+ поддерживаемых сайтов.
Оба варианта используют одну и ту же прокси-сеть — просто с разным уровнем возможностей.
Зарегистрируйтесь на iploop.io/signup — 0,5 ГБ бесплатно, без привязки карты.
Откройте ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) или %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows):
{
"mcpServers": {
"proxyclaw": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "proxyclaw-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"IPLOOP_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Перезапустите Claude Desktop. Готово.
Спросите у Claude:
"Check my exit IP through the proxy"
Claude вызовет proxy_check_ip и покажет резидентский IP, через который идет маршрутизация.
proxy_fetchПолучение любого URL через резидентский прокси.
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"country": "US",
"city": "newyork",
"session": "my-session-id",
"timeout": 30
}Использовать для: парсинга сайтов с геоограничениями, проверки цен по регионам, обхода защиты от ботов.
proxy_check_ipПроверка IP-адреса и страны, через которые осуществляется выход в сеть.
{
"country": "DE"
}Использовать для: проверки местоположения прокси перед парсингом.
proxy_list_countriesСписок всех 195+ доступных стран.
{}Использовать для: получения точного 2-буквенного кода страны (например, для Мадагаскара).
proxy_rotateПринудительная смена IP-адреса.
{
"country": "GB"
}Использовать для: случаев, когда текущий IP попал под ограничение скорости и вам нужен новый.
Вы: "Check what Amazon.com shows from a US IP"
Claude: [вызывает proxy_fetch с country=US, возвращает HTML]
Вы: "Now check the same page from Japan"
Claude: [вызывает proxy_fetch с country=JP, возвращает другие цены/контент]
Вы: "List all countries where I can route through"
Claude: [вызывает proxy_list_countries, возвращает 195+ стран]
Вы: "My current IP is blocked. Rotate to a new UK IP"
Claude: [вызывает proxy_rotate с country=GB, подтверждает новый IP]
API-ключ передается через переменную окружения — никогда не прописывается в коде
Весь трафик к целевым сайтам зашифрован TLS
Аутентификация прокси передается в открытом виде только на наш прокси-шлюз (как и в любом HTTP-прокси)
MCP-сервер не ведет логи и не сохраняет данные
npm install -g proxyclaw-mcp-server
# Run directly
IPLOOP_API_KEY=your_key proxyclaw-mcp-serverИли через Docker:
docker run -e IPLOOP_API_KEY=your_key proxyclaw/mcp-server0,5 ГБ трафика включено
Доступны все 195+ стран
Не требуется кредитная карта
Обновитесь в любое время на iploop.io.
Веб-сайт: proxyclaw.ai
Платформа: iploop.io
GitHub: github.com/Iploop/proxyclaw-mcp
Документация MCP: modelcontextprotocol.io
Создано с ⚡ компанией IPLoop
Check the current exit IP address and geo-location when routing through the proxy. Useful to verify which country/region your requests are coming from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | 2-letter country code to check exit IP from (optional, auto-rotate if omitted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions 'auto-rotate if omitted' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, potential side effects (e.g., token consumption), or error states.
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, front-loaded with purpose, concise and to the point. No unnecessary words.
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?
Tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). Description covers purpose and key behavior (auto-rotation). Could mention return format (IP, geo) but not critical for a simple check 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% (country param described). Description adds context that country is optional and auto-rotation occurs if omitted, which goes beyond schema. However, no other parameters exist, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 checks 'exit IP address and geo-location' and its purpose to 'verify which country/region' the proxy is using. Distinct from siblings like proxy_fetch or proxy_rotate.
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?
States when to use: to verify proxy location. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough. Siblings like proxy_list_countries or proxy_rotate imply alternatives for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a URL through the ProxyClaw residential proxy network. Routes the request through real residential IPs in 195+ countries. Use for geo-restricted content, anti-bot bypass, or multi-country research.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to fetch (must start with http:// or https://) | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code to route through (e.g., US, DE, JP). Auto-rotate if omitted. | |
| city | No | City name for city-level targeting (optional) | |
| session | No | Session ID for sticky IP (same IP across requests with same session ID) | |
| asn | No | ASN number for ISP-level targeting (optional) | |
| timeout | No | Request timeout in seconds (1-120, default: 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it routes through residential IPs in 195+ countries, and mentions auto-rotation of IP if no country specified. However, since no annotations are provided, it should also mention potential side effects (e.g., cost, rate limits, IP rotation impact) which are missing. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds value with use cases.
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 tool has 6 parameters (100% cover), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It could include a note about response format or potential failures, but overall it provides enough context for a competent agent.
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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds context about country targeting and session stickyness but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a URL through a residential proxy network, with specific use cases like geo-restricted content and anti-bot bypass. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_check_ip (which checks own IP) and proxy_list_countries (which lists countries).
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 mentions when to use the tool (geo-restricted content, anti-bot bypass, multi-country research), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all 195+ countries available for routing through the ProxyClaw residential network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a list of 195+ countries with routing capability, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or output format.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and performs a straightforward listing operation, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return data structure or confirming it is a read operation.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description adds value by indicating the tool lists all countries without need for input.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('countries available for routing through the ProxyClaw residential network'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., proxy_check_ip, proxy_fetch, proxy_rotate) by its unique purpose of listing countries.
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 implies that the tool is meant to retrieve a list of all supported countries for routing, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Force IP rotation by fetching with a new random session. Returns the new exit IP to confirm rotation worked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | 2-letter country code (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that the tool forces rotation and returns the new IP, which is sufficient behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects like invalidating existing sessions or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it adequately covers the core behavior.
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, zero waste: states what it does and what it returns. Optimal for the tool's simplicity.
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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, action, and outcome. Minor gap is lack of explicit statement about any prerequisites.
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?
Only one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage; description does not add meaning beyond schema's '2-letter country code (optional).' Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already explains the parameter.
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's action ('force IP rotation'), method ('fetching with a new random session'), and outcome ('returns the new exit IP to confirm rotation'). It is distinct from siblings like proxy_check_ip which checks current IP, and proxy_fetch which likely fetches a page.
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?
Description implies when to use (when a new IP is needed) and provides confirmation mechanism. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0proxy_check_ipproxy_fetchproxy_list_countriesproxy_rotateEach tool has a distinct purpose: check IP, fetch URL, list countries, and rotate IP. There is no overlap between these functions.
All tools follow a consistent 'proxy_verb' pattern (e.g., proxy_check_ip, proxy_fetch), making them easy to understand and remember.
The set of 4 tools covers the core proxy operations (check, fetch, list, rotate) without unnecessary extras, well-scoped for the proxy domain.
Core proxy workflows are covered: checking IP, fetching through proxy, listing countries, and rotating IP. One minor gap might be the lack of a tool to set the country explicitly, but rotation and checks suffice.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Crawl, scrape, search the web, and automate browsers at scale with anti-bot bypass.
Reliable web access for AI agents: smart HTTP, rotating proxies, and full-browser rendering.
The most accurate web access API. Stop getting blocked.
Enable language models to perform advanced AI-powered web scraping with enterprise-grade reliabili…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Iploop/proxyclaw-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
