validate_ipCheck 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.
| 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions verification against published IP data but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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), the description is largely complete. It explains the verification source. However, it does not specify the return value format, which would be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.
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 the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already defines 'ip' as the address to validate, so the description provides no extra value.
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 tool checks whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Yahoo! Slurp IP, verified against published data. It uses specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use the tool. The purpose is straightforward, but no context is provided about prerequisites or alternative approaches. Lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
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 ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly described: validating Yahoo! Slurp IP addresses.
The tool name 'validate_ip' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent with the single tool.
A single tool for a server named 'yahooslurp' is very thin. While the tool is focused, the server likely could benefit from additional tools (e.g., listing IP ranges) to cover the domain.
The tool fully addresses its stated purpose of IP validation, but the server's domain (Yahoo Slurp) suggests missing functionality like retrieving the latest IP list or managing configurations.