Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Validate whether an IP address belongs to Applebot. Remote MCP server exposing a validate_ip tool.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming is inherently consistent. The verb_noun pattern is clear and follows common conventions.

Tool Count5/5

One tool is perfectly appropriate for the narrow, focused purpose of verifying Applebot IP addresses. It fully covers the intended functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is complete for its domain: validating whether an IP is a genuine Applebot IP. No additional operations are needed for this specific task.

Available Tools

1 tool
validate_ipValidate Applebot IPAInspect

Check whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Applebot IP address, verified against Applebot's published IP data on seoapi.com.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesThe IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the verification source (seoapi.com) but does not state that the tool likely makes an external API call, nor does it discuss rate limits, latency, or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 20 words, conveying all essential information without redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and target.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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, no siblings), the description is largely complete. It explains the verification source, but could be more complete by briefly hinting at the response type (e.g., boolean or result object). Still, it meets the needs for a straightforward validation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides a clear description of the single parameter 'ip' as an IPv4 or IPv6 address. The tool description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the score is the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if an IP address is a genuine Applebot IP, using a specific verification source. The verb 'check' and resource 'IP address' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from generic IP validation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the tool's purpose is clear, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or when not to use it. It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources