SiteCheck Web Intel

For an IPv4 prefix: the origin AS seen announcing it now

security_bgp_prefix_origin

Read-only

For an IPv4 prefix (e.g. 8.8.8.0/24): the origin AS seen announcing it now across RIPE RIS peers, its RPKI status for that origin (valid, invalid or unknown), route objects, visibility, and how many more-specific and less-specific prefixes are seen. An 'invalid' RPKI status is a hijack warning sign; it is not proof of a hijack. 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": {
      "prefix": "<prefix>"
    },
    "name": "security_bgp_prefix_origin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	Yes	IPv4 prefix in CIDR form, e.g. 8.8.8.0/24 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`rpkiAlert`	No
`lastSeenAt`	No
`rpkiStatus`	No
`routeObjects`	No
`currentOrigin`	No
`lessSpecifics`	No
`moreSpecifics`	No
`totalRisPeers`	No
`firstSeenOrigin`	No
`visibleOnRisPeers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the data source (RIPE RIS peers), the monetary cost and payment mechanism (x402, $0.002 USDC per successful call, failed calls free), and an important interpretive caveat about 'invalid' RPKI status. It still does not mention RIS peer coverage limits or latency, so not 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Information is front-loaded: what is returned first, then the interpretation caveat, then pricing. The repeated example '8.8.8.0/24' duplicates the schema's own example, and the long opening clause is dense, but nothing is truly wasted.

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, the description need not detail return values, and it covers scope, source, cost, and a key interpretation caveat. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g. unannounced prefixes, limited RIS visibility) for a tool whose results are inherently partial-coverage observations.

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 the single parameter is already documented with a CIDR example, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the IPv4-only constraint (implicitly excluding IPv6 prefixes), which adds mild value but no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (IPv4 prefix) and enumerates concrete outputs: origin AS from RIPE RIS peers, RPKI status, route objects, visibility, and more/less-specific counts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like security_cymru_asn_lookup or security_asn_peers_upstream, which operate on ASNs rather than prefixes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that an 'invalid' RPKI status is a hijack warning sign but not proof signals a hijack-investigation use case. However, no alternatives are named (e.g. when to prefer a route-object lookup or an ASN-centric tool), and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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?