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., "@IPLocate look up location for 8.8.8.8"
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.
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for IPLocate.io - providing comprehensive IP address intelligence including geolocation, network information, privacy detection, and abuse contacts.
This MCP server provides tools to look up detailed information about IP addresses:
Geolocation: Country, city, coordinates, timezone, postal code and more
Network Information: ASN name, number, type, network range, ISP information
Privacy & Security: VPN detection, proxy detection, Tor exit nodes, hosting providers
Company Data: Organization name, domain, business type
Abuse Contacts: Email, phone, and address for reporting malicious activity
Related MCP server: mcp-ipinfo
To follow our quick start setup instructions, you will need:
Node.js 18 or higher
npm
A compatible MCP client. For example, Cursor, Claude Desktop.
The easiest way to use this MCP server is through your MCP client. Simply configure your client with the setup instructions below:
One-click setup:
Manual configuration:
In your project directory, create the configuration:
mkdir -p .cursor
touch .cursor/mcp.jsonAdd the following to .cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"iplocate": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@iplocate/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"IPLOCATE_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Replace your_api_key_here with your actual API key from IPLocate.io.
Open Claude Desktop settings
On macOS: Cmd + ,
On Windows: Ctrl + ,
Go to the "Developer" tab and click "Edit Config"
Add the IPLocate server configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"iplocate": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@iplocate/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"IPLOCATE_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Replace your_api_key_here with your actual API key from IPLocate.io.
Create the VS Code MCP configuration:
mkdir -p .vscode
touch .vscode/mcp.jsonAdd the following to .vscode/mcp.json:
{
"servers": {
"iplocate": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@iplocate/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"IPLOCATE_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Replace your_api_key_here with your actual API key from IPLocate.io.
The server provides the following tools:
lookup_ip_address_detailsGet comprehensive information about an IP address including all available data.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address.
Example:
{
"ip": "8.8.8.8"
}Returns: All available data about the IP address, including geolocation, network information, privacy, and company data.
lookup_ip_address_locationGet geographic location information for an IP address.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.
Returns: Country, city, coordinates, timezone, postal code, and more.
lookup_ip_address_privacyCheck whether an IP address is detected as a VPN, proxy, other anonymizing service; is on an abuse blocklist; or is a hosting provider.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.
Returns: VPN status, proxy detection, Tor exit node status, hosting provider information.
lookup_ip_address_networkGet network and ASN (Autonomous System Number) information for an IP address.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.
Returns: ASN details, network range, ISP information, regional registry.
lookup_ip_address_companyGet company/organization information for an IP address.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.
Returns: Company name, domain, country, organization type.
lookup_ip_address_abuse_contactsGet abuse contact information for an IP address to report malicious activity.
Parameters:
ip (optional): IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.
Returns: Abuse contact email, phone, address, and network range.
The server also provides pre-configured prompts to help with common IP analysis tasks:
check_ip_securityAnalyze an IP address for security concerns including VPN, proxy, Tor usage, and abuse history.
Example usage: "Use the check_ip_security prompt to analyze 192.168.1.1"
locate_ip_geographicallyGet detailed geographic information about an IP address.
Example usage: "Use the locate_ip_geographically prompt to find where I am"
investigate_ip_ownershipGet detailed information about who owns and operates an IP address.
Example usage: "Use the investigate_ip_ownership prompt to check who owns 8.8.8.8"
ip_comparisonCompare geographic and network information between two IP addresses.
Example usage: "Use the ip_comparison prompt to compare 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8"
You can make up to 50 requests per day without an API key.
Sign up for a free API key at IPLocate.io to increase your free quota to 1,000 requests per day.
Create a free account
Get your API key from the dashboard
The server automatically reads your API key from the IPLOCATE_API_KEY environment variable. Configure it in your MCP client settings (see the configuration examples above) or set it when running manually.
If you need to run the server manually (for development or testing), you have several options:
Node.js 18 or higher
npm or yarn
npx -y @iplocate/mcp-serverWith API key:
On macOS/Linux:
export IPLOCATE_API_KEY=your_api_key_here
npx -y @iplocate/mcp-serverOn Windows:
set IPLOCATE_API_KEY=your_api_key_here
npx -y @iplocate/mcp-servernpm install -g @iplocate/mcp-server
mcp-server-iplocategit clone https://github.com/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate.git
cd mcp-server-iplocate
yarn install
yarn build
yarn startFor development with auto-reload:
yarn devYou can test the server using the MCP Inspector:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.jsThe IPLocate API returns comprehensive data about IP addresses. Here's an example response structure:
{
"ip": "8.8.8.8",
"country": "United States",
"country_code": "US",
"city": "Mountain View",
"latitude": 37.386,
"longitude": -122.0838,
"asn": {
"asn": "AS15169",
"name": "Google LLC",
"domain": "google.com"
},
"privacy": {
"is_vpn": false,
"is_proxy": false,
"is_tor": false,
"is_hosting": true
}
// ... and more fields
}For full details, see the IPLocate API documentation.
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
For issues with this MCP server, please open an issue on GitHub
For IPLocate API support, contact support@iplocate.io
For IPLocate API documentation, visit https://iplocate.io/docs
Model Context Protocol for the MCP specification
Anthropic for the MCP TypeScript SDK
Since 2017, IPLocate has set out to provide the most reliable and accurate IP address data.
We process 50TB+ of data to produce our comprehensive IP geolocation, IP to company, proxy and VPN detection, hosting detection, ASN, and WHOIS data sets. Our API handles over 15 billion requests a month for thousands of businesses and developers.
Email: support@iplocate.io
Website: iplocate.io
Documentation: iplocate.io/docs
Sign up for a free API Key: iplocate.io/signup
Get abuse contact information for an IP address to report malicious activity. Includes email, phone, and address of the network administrator. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by explaining what information is returned (email, phone, address) and the default behavior when no IP is provided. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential limitations of the data source.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and what's included, while the second explains parameter behavior and default case. No wasted 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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what information it returns, and parameter behavior. The main gap is lack of information about response format or potential limitations.
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 schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description adds minimal value by restating that it accepts IPv4/IPv6 addresses and explaining the default behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get abuse contact information') and resources ('IP address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on abuse contacts rather than company, details, location, network, or privacy information.
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 to use it ('to report malicious activity') and provides clear context on when-not-to-use alternatives by specifying its unique focus on abuse contacts. It also explains the default behavior when no IP is provided, which helps differentiate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get company/organization information for an IP address including the company name, domain, and type of organization. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality and default behavior (looking up caller's IP if none provided), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return data, while the second explains parameter behavior and defaults. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameter behavior, but doesn't describe the return format or potential limitations. For a lookup tool with no output schema, more detail about response structure would be helpful.
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 schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description mentions the same information about the parameter (IPv4/IPv6 address, default to caller's IP if not provided) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Get company/organization information') and resource ('for an IP address'), including what information is returned ('company name, domain, and type of organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on company/organization data rather than abuse contacts, details, location, network, or privacy information.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for IP address company lookups, with the ability to look up any IPv4/IPv6 address or the caller's own IP if no address is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the sibling names imply different data types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get comprehensive information about an IP address including geolocation, network details, privacy/security information, company data, and abuse contacts. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's scope (IPv4/IPv6 addresses, default to caller's IP) and the types of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, accuracy, or error handling for invalid inputs, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 perfectly front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence establishes the comprehensive scope, and the second sentence clarifies input flexibility and default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose and usage.
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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details about response format, error conditions, or data sources to achieve full completeness for agent 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool can look up 'any IPv4 or IPv6 address' and clarifies the default behavior when no address is provided ('returns information about the caller's IP address'), which complements the schema's parameter description. This additional semantic context justifies a score above baseline.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about an IP address') with specific details about what information is included (geolocation, network details, privacy/security information, company data, and abuse contacts). It explicitly distinguishes this comprehensive tool from its specialized sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like abuse contacts, company, location, network, or privacy.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states that this tool provides 'comprehensive information' covering multiple aspects, while the sibling tools (lookup_ip_address_abuse_contacts, lookup_ip_address_company, etc.) are specialized for specific data types. It also clarifies the default behavior when no IP is provided (returns caller's IP information).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get geographic location information for an IP address including country, city, coordinates, timezone, and postal code. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it can handle both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, and it defaults to returning the caller's IP if no address is provided. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are gaps for a tool with no 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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose and key details, and the second sentence adds important behavioral context (address types and default). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of geographic data) and error handling, which could be improved for full 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (ip). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that the parameter is for IPv4/IPv6 addresses and the default behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get geographic location information') and resource ('for an IP address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact type of information returned (country, city, coordinates, timezone, postal code). It explicitly mentions what makes it different from other lookup tools that focus on abuse contacts, company details, network info, privacy, or general details.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies that this tool is for geographic location information, and by listing the sibling tools (e.g., lookup_ip_address_abuse_contacts), it implies alternatives for other types of IP data. It also clearly states when to use it ('if no address is provided' returns caller's IP info), though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling context suffices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get network and ASN (Autonomous System Number) information for an IP address including the network operator, route, and regional registry. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the default behavior when no IP is provided (returns caller's IP info) and specifies what information is included. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details that would be valuable for an agent.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second explains the parameter behavior. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important 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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and parameter behavior. However, it doesn't describe the response structure or format, which would be important for an agent to understand what to expect from 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds valuable context by explaining the optional nature of the parameter and the default behavior when omitted, which goes beyond the schema's technical specification.
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 specific action ('Get network and ASN information'), the resource ('for an IP address'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact data returned (network operator, route, regional registry). It explicitly mentions both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, making the scope unambiguous.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for network/ASN info) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the type of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different information needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether an IP address is detected as a VPN, proxy, other anonymizing service; is on an abuse blocklist; or is a hosting provider. Can look up any IPv4 or IPv6 address, or your own IP if no address is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up. If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool checks for (VPN/proxy detection, abuse blocklist status, hosting provider identification) and the fallback behavior when no IP is provided. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, accuracy limitations, or what format the results will be in.
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 perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and capabilities, while the second sentence explains parameter behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool's moderate complexity (privacy/security checking with fallback behavior) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool checks for and parameter behavior, but doesn't describe the format or structure of results, which is a significant gap since there's no output schema to compensate.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of the parameter ('IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up') and clarifying the special case behavior ('If not provided, returns information about the caller's IP address'), which goes beyond the schema's technical specification.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check whether an IP address is detected as...') and resources ('VPN, proxy, other anonymizing service; abuse blocklist; hosting provider'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on privacy/security detection rather than contacts, company, details, location, or network information.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Check whether an IP address is detected as...') and includes a specific usage scenario ('or your own IP if no address is provided'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different types of IP lookups.
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.
lookup_ip_address_abuse_contactslookup_ip_address_companylookup_ip_address_detailslookup_ip_address_locationlookup_ip_address_networklookup_ip_address_privacyEach tool has a distinct focus within IP address lookup, targeting specific aspects like abuse contacts, company details, location, network info, and privacy checks. However, there is some overlap as 'lookup_ip_address_details' appears to encompass multiple other tools' functionalities, which could cause confusion about when to use it versus the specialized tools.
All tool names follow a consistent 'lookup_ip_address_' prefix with a descriptive suffix (e.g., 'abuse_contacts', 'company', 'details'), using snake_case uniformly throughout. This predictable pattern makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for IP address information lookup, covering key aspects like geolocation, network details, privacy, and abuse contacts. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for IP address lookup, including geolocation, network, company, privacy, and abuse contacts, with no obvious gaps in core functionality. A minor gap is the lack of tools for bulk lookups or historical data, but agents can handle single-address queries effectively.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
IP geolocation, ASN and network data, plus VPN, proxy and Tor detection. ASN tools need no key.
Free no-key IP intelligence: geolocation, VPN detection, DNS, WHOIS, blacklists, breach checks
Unlock the power of IP geolocation with our tool! Whether you're a developer needing location data
IP Geolocation: This API provides fast, reliable, and developer-friendly IP geolocation, ASN.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iplocate/mcp-server-iplocate'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
