SiteCheck Web Intel

IPv4 or IPv6 address → covering BGP prefix, origin

security_ip_geolocation_asn

Read-only

IPv4 or IPv6 address → covering BGP prefix, origin AS number and holder name, whether the prefix is announced, and a coarse country and map point, all from RIPEstat. Location is an estimate (a block-level database), not a street address; the city is often empty. 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_talos_ip_blacklist when you need Cisco Talos reputation for an IPv4 address: threat level. 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_ip_geolocation_asn"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 or IPv6 address such as 8.8.8.8 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`asn`	No
`prefix`	No
`source`	No
`location`	No
`announced`	No
`asnHolder`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`locationCoveragePct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data comes from RIPEstat, location is block-level and estimated rather than a street address, the city field is often empty, and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc while failed calls are free. That pricing and data-quality disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Outputs are front-loaded in a dense arrow construction, followed by the location caveat, sibling routing, and pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the sibling-routing clause is slightly wordy and the overlapping cymru comparison could be tightened.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers source, output fields, accuracy caveats, sibling alternatives, and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it or to interpret the result 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description's mention of accepting IPv4 or IPv6 merely restates what the schema already documents. No additional syntax, formatting, or edge-case meaning is added beyond the schema, 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 states a concrete input (IPv4 or IPv6 address) and enumerates the exact outputs: covering BGP prefix, origin AS number, holder name, announcement status, coarse country and map point, plus the upstream source (RIPEstat). It explicitly names two sibling tools and the different need each serves, so an agent can separate this from security_cymru_asn_lookup and security_talos_ip_blacklist without opening a schema.

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 explicit routing guidance, naming security_cymru_asn_lookup and security_talos_ip_blacklist with the condition that selects each. The routing to cymru is a bit ambiguous, since that tool's stated need (map an IPv4 to its origin AS) overlaps with what this tool also returns, so the boundary is not fully crisp, but usage context is clearly present.

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?