SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks an IPv4 address against the abuse.ch Feodo Tracker

security_feodotracker_c2

Read-only

Checks an IPv4 address against the abuse.ch Feodo Tracker botnet C2 blocklist (Emotet, QakBot and similar). A hit returns the port, online status, malware family, country, AS and first and last seen dates. Covers only the C2 servers this feed tracks. 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": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "security_feodotracker_c2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 162.243.103.246 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`entry`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`listSize`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged. It also lists the fields a hit returns and the feed's coverage limitation. Only the absence of any note on rate limits or latency keeps it from 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: purpose first, return shape second, scope and pricing last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it checks, what it costs) are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, coverage limits, return contents and billing. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke 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 the single 'ip' parameter is already documented with an example, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that only IPv4 is accepted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks an IPv4 address against the abuse.ch Feodo Tracker botnet C2 blocklist') and names the malware families covered, which distinguishes it from siblings like security_abuseipdb_check or security_threatfox_iocs.

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 scope note 'Covers only the C2 servers this feed tracks' implies when the tool is and isn't appropriate, but no sibling alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given for choosing between this and other IP-reputation tools.

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?