SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks an IPv4 address against IPsum, an aggregate

security_ipsum_threat_level

Read-only

Checks an IPv4 address against IPsum, an aggregate of public blocklists: returns the number of source feeds that list it (its level, 1 to 8) and whether it is listed at all. A higher level means more feeds agree. Not listed means none of the aggregated feeds list it. 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_ipsum_threat_level"
  }
}

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
`level`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`entries`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the return semantics (feed count as level 1–8, with higher meaning more corroboration) and the negative case. Crucially it discloses commercial behavior an agent must know before calling: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, and that failed calls are not charged.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then interpretation, then cost. Dense and largely waste-free, though 'Not listed means none of the aggregated feeds list it' largely restates the earlier 'whether it is listed at all', making it the one sentence closest to redundant.

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 safety annotations, everything an agent needs is present: the input type, the meaning of the returned level scale, the negative case, and the payment model. No gaps that would cause a mis-call.

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?

The schema has a single fully documented parameter ('IPv4 address such as 185.220.101.1 (required)') at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the load. The description reinforces the IPv4-only constraint by saying 'Checks an IPv4 address', but adds no format or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool with complete schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (checks an IPv4 address against IPsum) and describes what IPsum is: an aggregate of public blocklists. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from single-feed checks like security_spamhaus_zen or security_talos_ip_blacklist, but 'aggregate of public blocklists' implicitly separates it from those single-source tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many blocklist siblings. Usage is only implied by the aggregate framing: an agent can infer it is a broad first-pass reputation check, but it must infer that itself. The explanation of what level and 'not listed' mean helps interpretation, not selection.

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?