Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Validate Yahoo! Slurp IP addresses. Remote MCP 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 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusing it with others. Disambiguation is perfect by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is not applicable in a comparative sense, but 'validate_ip' is clear and follows a verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'yahooslurp' with only one tool feels too narrow; the name suggests broader functionality related to Yahoo Slurp, but only IP validation is offered.

Completeness3/5

For the specific task of IP validation, the tool is complete. However, if the server's purpose includes any other aspects of Yahoo Slurp (e.g., user-agent validation, crawl stats), there are significant gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
validate_ipValidate Yahoo! Slurp IPAInspect

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

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesThe IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the source of truth (seoapi.com), implying a read-only check. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or response format, which would enhance transparency.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant information.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the essential function. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent lacks details about return values, which slightly reduces 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% with a clear description for the 'ip' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 validates an IP address against Yahoo! Slurp's published data, using specific verbs 'check' and 'validate'. It identifies the exact resource and scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly indicates usage when verifying if an IP is a genuine Yahoo! Slurp IP. No siblings are provided, so no differentiation is needed, but explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is absent.

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