A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEmail validation MCP server using MailboxValidator API to determine validity of an email address.
3
37 npm
1
MIT
ccbot
by com.seoapi
Server Details
Validate CommonCrawl CCBot IP addresses. Remote MCP validate_ip tool.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 92.2% over 54 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
- URL
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool name 'validate_ip' is clear, uses snake_case consistently, and there is only one tool so no inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With a single, well-defined purpose (IP validation), one tool is appropriate and not too few.
Completeness5/5
For the narrow domain of checking a single IP address against CommonCrawl data, the tool fully covers the required operation.
Available Tools
1 toolvalidate_ipValidate CommonCrawl CCBot IPBInspect
Check whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine CommonCrawl CCBot IP address, verified against CommonCrawl CCBot's published IP data on seoapi.com.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | The IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate |
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like external API dependence, rate limits, or error handling. It only mentions verification against published data on seoapi.com, lacking detail on side effects or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured with key details upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 annotations), the description is minimally adequate. Missing details like return format or error behavior reduce completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and description adds no new meaning beyond stating 'IPv4 or IPv6', which is already in the schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description doesn't enhance semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check whether' and clearly identifies the resource 'IP address' and scope 'genuine CommonCrawl CCBot IP address'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose without needing sibling differentiation.
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?
The description implies usage for verifying CCBot IPs but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With no sibling tools, the omission is less critical but still leaves ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
validate_ip
Related MCP Connectors
Validate Cốc Cốc Bot IP addresses. Remote MCP validate_ip tool.
Validate DuckDuckBot IP addresses. Remote MCP validate_ip tool.
Validate Yahoo! Slurp IP addresses. Remote MCP validate_ip tool.
Validate ClaudeBot and Claude-SearchBot IP addresses. Remote MCP validate_ip tool.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides MCP tools for IP threat intelligence lookup and enrichment, including single IP lookup, bulk hunting, ASN expansion, and feed status queries.MIT
CompliAPIofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceReal-time OFAC and global sanctions screening for AI agents: screen crypto addresses, emails, websites, government IDs, and countries against OFAC SDN and 10+ sanctions/crime/risk lists, plus PEP screening, VPN detection, and IP geolocation. Hosted remote streamable-HTTP server at https://api.compliapi.com/mcp (anonymous tools/list; free API key or x402 pay-per-call).MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides a no-key IP intelligence API for MCP clients, enabling IP geolocation, VPN/datacenter detection, DNS, WHOIS, blacklist checks, security headers, port scanning, and more.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.