SiteCheck Web Intel

For an autonomous system: how many upstream and downstream

security_asn_peers_upstream

Read-only

For an autonomous system (e.g. AS13335): how many upstream (transit) and downstream neighbours RIPEstat sees in BGP, the top upstreams ranked by 'power' with their IPv4 and IPv6 peer counts, and the top downstreams. Built from RIS route collector paths, so it is an observed view, not the contract. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_cymru_asn_lookup when you need to map an IPv4 address to its origin AS number, the BGP; security_ip_geolocation_asn when you need IPv4 or IPv6 address → covering BGP prefix, origin. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "asn": "<asn>"
    },
    "name": "security_asn_peers_upstream"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asn`	Yes	AS number such as AS13335 or 13335 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asn`	No
`counts`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`upstreams`	No
`downstreams`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses data provenance ('built from RIS route collector paths, so it is an observed view, not the contract') — a meaningful caveat about result reliability. It also states the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and that failed calls are not charged, which is important invocation context. Rate limits and pagination behavior are not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and provenance are well front-loaded, but the sibling-routing sentence degrades into a garbled fragment ('the BGP; security_ip_geolocation_asn when you need IPv4 or IPv6 address → covering BGP prefix, origin'), and the pricing sentence is appended without transition. The core content is worthwhile but the structure needs cleanup.

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?

With an output schema present and a single well-documented parameter, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the observed-vs-contract caveat, the ranking notion ('power'), and cost/payment terms. Only the mangled sibling sentence and the absence of failure/empty-result behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and the schema already shows the 'AS13335 or 13335' format. The description repeats the AS13335 example but adds no new meaning (e.g. whether private/reserved ASNs are accepted), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource and scope: upstream (transit) and downstream neighbour counts for an ASN as observed by RIPEstat in BGP, plus top upstreams ranked by 'power' with IPv4/IPv6 peer counts. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings (security_cymru_asn_lookup, security_ip_geolocation_asn), so an agent can separate them without opening schemas.

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?

It routes the agent away from this tool with concrete conditions: use security_cymru_asn_lookup to map an IPv4 to its origin AS, and security_ip_geolocation_asn for address-to-prefix/origin. What is missing is an explicit positive trigger ('use this when you need BGP topology around an AS'), but the first sentence effectively implies it.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

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

Need Help?