Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ip-mcp classify 10.0.0.1"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server: classify, test, and expand IPv4/IPv6 addresses. No external
deps — uses Node's built-in net plus first-principles bit math.
info{ "address": "10.0.0.1" }→
{
"address": "10.0.0.1",
"version": 4,
"is_private": true,
"is_loopback": false,
"is_link_local": false,
"is_multicast": false,
"is_unspecified": false
}Works for both v4 (RFC 1918) and v6 (ULA fc00::/7, link-local fe80::/10, multicast ff00::/8).
contains{ "cidr": "192.168.1.0/24", "address": "192.168.1.99" }→ { "contains": true }
Works for both v4 and v6 CIDR blocks. Mismatched versions throw.
expand{ "address": "2001:db8::1" }→ { "expanded": "2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001" }
Related MCP server: NetworkCalc MCP Server
{ "mcpServers": { "ip": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@mukundakatta/ip-mcp"] } } }MIT.
Check whether an IP address is inside a CIDR block (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cidr | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to specify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (none expected but unstated), or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean). The description only hints at the check operation without detailing outcomes or errors.
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 efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the example adds clarity without bloat.
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?
Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description lacks important context: no mention of the return type (boolean or other), error handling for invalid inputs, or edge cases (e.g., non-IP strings). With no output schema or annotations, this omission leaves the agent underinformed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'cidr' is a CIDR block with an example and 'address' is an IP address. However, it does not specify format constraints (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6) or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.
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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resources ('IP address', 'CIDR block') with an example. It effectively communicates the tool's function without ambiguity, and the sibling tools (expand, info) are distinct enough not to cause confusion.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when it should not be used. There are no mentions of prerequisites, limitations, or fallback options. The description simply states the action without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Expand a compact IPv6 address to its full eight-group form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the transformation behavior but does not disclose what happens with invalid input or any edge cases. The core behavior is clear, but lacking depth.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the input and output. It implies the output is a full eight-group form, but could mention error handling for completeness.
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 single parameter 'address' is described as 'compact IPv6 address', adding meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, with 0% schema coverage, more details like expected format or examples would be beneficial.
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 expands a compact IPv6 address to its full eight-group form. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'contains' and 'info' which are unrelated.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With siblings 'contains' and 'info', explicit instructions would help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Classify an IPv4 or IPv6 address: version + private/loopback/link-local/multicast/unspecified flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly describes the tool as a classifier that returns version and flags, but it does not mention error handling for invalid addresses or behavior for unsupported input formats.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the main purpose, with no redundant 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a clear expectation of output (version plus flags). It is adequate for a simple classification tool, though additional details on output format or potential errors could improve completeness.
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 the description must compensate. The description explains the 'address' parameter is an IP address, but it does not specify format details (e.g., CIDR notation, validation rules). The parameter is straightforward, but the description adds minimal semantic depth 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 clearly states 'Classify an IPv4 or IPv6 address' and lists specific classification categories (version, private, loopback, etc.), making the purpose precise and distinct from sibling tools 'contains' and 'expand'.
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 usage for obtaining classification details of IP addresses, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contains' or 'expand', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
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.
v0.1.0containsexpandinfoEach tool has a completely distinct purpose: contains checks IP in CIDR, expand expands IPv6, info classifies address properties. No overlap.
All tool names are single, lowercase verbs (contains, expand, info), following a consistent pattern.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a focused IP utility server, covering essential operations without bloat.
Covers containment, expansion, and classification. Missing validation or subnet calculation, but core functionality is present and gaps are minor.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
IP address utilities MCP.
Calculates IPv4 subnet information from an IP address and CIDR prefix or dotted decimal subnet mask
IP geolocation, ASN and network data, plus VPN, proxy and Tor detection. ASN tools need no key.
Generate IDs, QR codes, and hashes, encode values, geolocate IPs, plus gated host diagnostics.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MukundaKatta/ip-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server