validate_ipCheck whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Googlebot IP address, verified against Googlebot'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 carries full burden. It discloses verification against Googlebot's published IP data externally, but does not mention potential network latency, authentication requirements, or error handling. Behavior is minimally transparent.
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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and free of extraneous words. Every part earns its place.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return values or error cases. An agent would benefit from knowing the output format.
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 baseline is 3. The parameter 'ip' is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is 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 verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Googlebot IP address'. It is highly specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no exclusions. The absence of sibling tools reduces the need for differentiation, but still lacks usage context.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The agent can unambiguously select this tool for its specific purpose.
The single tool name 'validate_ip' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is consistent within the set. No other tools exist to create inconsistency.
At one tool, the server is at the lower boundary of reasonable scope. While it serves a focused purpose, it offers very little surface area for an agent, making it borderline thin.
For the narrow domain of verifying Googlebot IP addresses, a single validation tool is complete. There are no obvious missing operations for this specific task.