validate_ipCheck 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | The IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools.
The tool name 'validate_ip' is clear, uses snake_case consistently, and there is only one tool so no inconsistency.
With a single, well-defined purpose (IP validation), one tool is appropriate and not too few.
For the narrow domain of checking a single IP address against CommonCrawl data, the tool fully covers the required operation.