net-mcp

Rpki Validate

rpki_validate

Validate BGP route origin against RPKI ROAs to determine if a prefix and origin ASN pair is VALID, INVALID, or NOT_FOUND, with fallback to Cloudflare Radar.

Instructions

Validate a BGP route origin against RPKI ROAs.

Checks whether a given prefix + origin ASN pair is VALID, INVALID, or NOT_FOUND in RPKI. Returns matching ROAs and details about any max-length issues.

Queries RIPEstat first for full ROA details. If RIPEstat returns NOT_FOUND, Cloudflare Radar is consulted to confirm the status. If RIPEstat is unavailable entirely, falls back to Cloudflare Radar (status only, no ROA details).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prefix": "<prefix>",
      "origin_asn": "<origin_asn>"
    },
    "name": "rpki_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	Yes	IP prefix in CIDR notation (e.g. '1.1.1.0/24')
`origin_asn`	Yes	Origin AS number to validate (e.g. 13335)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`detail`	Yes	Human-readable explanation of the status
`prefix`	Yes	Prefix that was validated
`status`	Yes	VALID, INVALID, NOT_FOUND (no covering ROA), or ERROR (all sources failed)
`origin_asn`	Yes	Origin AS that was validated
`matching_roas`	Yes	ROAs covering the prefix (may be empty)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and meets it well: it reveals the RIPEstat-first strategy, Cloudflare Radar fallback, the case where only status is returned, and that matching ROAs and max-length details are included. This is unusually transparent about source behavior and output limitations.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by outcome semantics and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and none merely restates the title or schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, input semantics (via schema), return statuses, ROA details, max-length handling, and fallback behavior. With an output schema present, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions with examples in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating prefix + origin ASN, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Validate a BGP route origin against RPKI ROAs.' It then defines the exact input (prefix + origin ASN) and output statuses (VALID/INVALID/NOT_FOUND), which makes the operation distinct from the sibling RPKI lookup tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (whenever route-origin validation against RPKI is needed) and gives clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the nearby rpki_roa_lookup and rpki_aspa_lookup tools, explicit sibling routing would have been stronger.

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