驗證 IP 是否真的來自 Googlebot、bingbot、GPTBot、ClaudeBot、PerplexityBot、Applebot、Baiduspider 等（官方 IP 清單＋反查 DNS）。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"ip": "<ip>"
},
"name": "verify_crawler_ip"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | ||
| bot | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the verification method (official IP list plus reverse DNS lookup), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about the result shape, failure behavior, or rate/latency characteristics of the DNS lookup.
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 that front-loads the action and the covered bot set, with the method tucked into parentheses. No filler and nothing redundant.
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?
A verification tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs to explain what comes back (boolean, matched bot name, or error) and how the optional 'bot' parameter narrows the check. The method disclosure partially compensates, but the return contract and parameter roles remain unaddressed.
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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The listed bot names hint at valid values for the optional 'bot' parameter but no enum exists to confirm, and the required 'ip' format (IPv4/IPv6) and the role of 'bot' (restrict check to one bot vs auto-detect) are left undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (verify) and resource (crawler IP) and names the concrete bot families covered (Googlebot, bingbot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, etc.). It is distinguishable from siblings like ai_crawler_list or check_site_crawlers, which are about listing crawlers or checking site visits rather than validating a single IP.
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 the use case (anti-spoofing / confirming a claim that an IP belongs to a named bot) but never states when to pick this tool over check_site_crawlers or ai_crawler_list, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the intended trigger entirely.
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.