SiteCheck Web Intel

GreyNoise Community lookup for an IPv4 address: whether it

security_grey_noise_noise

Read-only

GreyNoise Community lookup for an IPv4 address: whether it was seen mass-scanning the internet recently (noise), whether it is a known benign service (riot), its classification (benign, malicious, unknown), name and last-seen date. An address GreyNoise has not seen returns noise=false with a message; it is not a clean verdict. 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_grey_noise_noise"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 185.220.101.1 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`name`	No
`riot`	No
`noise`	No
`source`	No
`message`	No
`lastSeen`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`classification`	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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes further by disclosing the payment model ($0.002 in USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged — material for an agent deciding whether to spend. It also warns about the false-negative trap of unseen addresses. Rate limits or latency are not covered, and return-format detail is redundant given the output schema.

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 purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the interpretation caveat and then cost. Dense but tight; the field enumeration is slightly long but each item tells the agent what it can use the result for.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the agent has everything needed: what is returned, how to interpret an unseen address, and what the call costs. Only the absence of explicit sibling-alternative guidance keeps it below the top score.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already states it is a required IPv4 address with an example. The description's mention of 'IPv4 address' adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (GreyNoise Community lookup for an IPv4 address) and enumerates exactly what the lookup yields: noise, riot, classification, name and last-seen. It is clearly different in substance from siblings such as security_abuseipdb_check or security_shodan_host_summary, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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 gives a concrete interpretation rule: an address GreyNoise has not seen returns noise=false with a message and 'is not a clean verdict', which tells the agent how to read and when not to trust a result. What is missing is explicit routing guidance versus the other IP-reputation siblings in this group.

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?