Skip to main content
Glama

Crawler IP Verifier - real Googlebot or fake

by dev.workers.pathwren.www

The state of the mirror

range_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Takes no arguments. Safe to call. Deterministic. Touches no third party. Per source: prefix counts, total addresses and /24-equivalents, smallest and largest prefix, the publishing URL and when it was last fetched; plus prefixes published by more than one operator. This is the sizing and freshness information an allowlist decision needs. Example: {} — no arguments at all.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating determinism, no third-party interaction, and the per-source output granularity. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important traits: no arguments, safe, deterministic, no third-party calls. The final example is slightly redundant with the first sentence and schema example, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return value contents, and it does so thoroughly: prefix counts, totals, /24-equivalents, extremes, URLs, fetch times, and multi-operator prefixes. This is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and why it matters.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments' and an explicit {} example, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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 identifies what the tool produces: per-source prefix statistics, sizing/freshness information, and multi-operator prefixes. This is specific enough to distinguish range_stats from siblings like lookup_prefix, verify_batch, and export_ip_acl.

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 states the intended decision context: 'the sizing and freshness information an allowlist decision needs.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the no-arguments, read-only, aggregate nature makes the appropriate use case clear.

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

All Crawler IP Verifier - real Googlebot or fake toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

verify_my_address and whoami both check the caller's address against published crawler prefixes and take no arguments, making them easy to confuse. verify_batch also overlaps with both for single-address checks, while only the remaining tools (lookup_prefix, range_stats, verification_methods, export_ip_acl) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

The names mix verb-led patterns like verify_batch and export_ip_acl with noun-led names like range_stats and verification_methods, plus command-style whoami and non-domain example. All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count4/5

Eight tools is a reasonable size for this verification-focused server and stays inside the ideal 3-15 range. The count is slightly padded by overlapping caller tools and a demo tool, but it is not excessive or thin.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: batch verification, caller verification, prefix overlap lookup, verification method reference, range statistics, and ACL export. A minor gap is that the server intentionally avoids reverse DNS and offers no refresh/update operation, but these appear to be deliberate scope choices.

Resources