Skip to main content
Glama

Tizona — Australian business identity tools

by io.github.TizonaMCP
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DRONGO

verify_ai_crawler
Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. Is a crawler who it claims to be, by the strongest available method. CRYPTOGRAPHIC (best): pass a Web Bot Auth signature (RFC 9421) with its signatureInput, signatureAgent and url — we fetch the operator's published key and verify it (proof of key control, not just network origin). NETWORK: pass a source ip with userAgent/claimed — we check the operator's published IP ranges (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Perplexity, Bing, Apple, DuckDuckGo, Common Crawl, Mistral, Kagi, and more). Returns verified, spoofed, unrecognised, or indeterminate; never calls a claim spoofed when it merely cannot be checked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNoThe source IP address to verify (IPv4 or IPv6). Used for the network-range check.
urlNoThe request URL — required for a Web Bot Auth signature check (rebuilds the signed components).
claimedNoOptional explicit identity key (e.g. "gptbot", "bingbot", "googlebot") instead of a user-agent.
signatureNoThe request's Signature header value (Web Bot Auth / RFC 9421).
userAgentNoThe User-Agent string the request presented. Used to infer the claimed identity.
signatureAgentNoThe request's Signature-Agent header value — the operator key-directory URL.
signatureInputNoThe request's Signature-Input header value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ip": "203.0.113.10",
+    "userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; GPTBot/1.1; +https://openai.com/gptbot)"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / claimed / description
      Previous value: -"Optional explicit identity key (e.g. \"gptbot\", \"claudebot\", \"googlebot\") instead of a user-agent."New value: +"Optional explicit identity key (e.g. \"gptbot\", \"bingbot\", \"googlebot\") instead of a user-agent."
    • changedInput schema / properties / ip / description
      Previous value: -"The source IP address of the request to verify (IPv4 or IPv6)."New value: +"The source IP address to verify (IPv4 or IPv6). Used for the network-range check."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The request's Signature header value (Web Bot Auth / RFC 9421).",
+  "maxLength": 4000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signatureAgent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The request's Signature-Agent header value — the operator key-directory URL.",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signatureInput
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The request's Signature-Input header value.",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The request URL — required for a Web Bot Auth signature check (rebuilds the signed components).",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "ip"
-]New value: +[]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: proof-of-key control rather than network origin, the operator key-directory fetch, the IP-range check, and the four possible return statuses. It also explicitly avoids false positives on spoofing, which is valuable operational context.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes: cost, purpose, both verification methods, required inputs, supported operators, return statuses, and a key caveat. It is well-labelled and front-loads the core purpose before detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with seven optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the two mutually relevant input combinations, the meaning of each verification mode, and the return status vocabulary. It covers both invocation modes and the tool's limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by grouping parameters into the two verification flows: signatureInput/signatureAgent/url for cryptographic, and ip/userAgent/claimed for network. This clarifies how the parameters work together beyond individual schema entries.

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 states a precise verb and resource: verify whether a crawler is who it claims to be, via cryptographic or network-range evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling access-focused tools and clearly names the two verification modes. The phrase 'never calls a claim spoofed when it merely cannot be checked' adds a clear behavioral boundary.

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 gives explicit input-selection guidance: use cryptographic verification when a Web Bot Auth signature is available, and network verification when only an IP/user-agent is available. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context for invocation is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tizona — Australian business identity tools toolsInspect
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.

Resources