SiteCheck Web Intel

For a mail domain: lists up to 3 MX hosts with their IPv4

security_mx_server_test

Read-only

For a mail domain: lists up to 3 MX hosts with their IPv4 addresses and, from Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data, which SMTP ports (25, 465, 587) were seen open on each address. Passive and possibly old; no SMTP conversation, banner, STARTTLS or certificate test is made. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_crossdomain_xml_test when you need to read a site's public crossdomain.xml; security_smb_exposure_test when you need to check Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 445. 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "security_mx_server_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Mail domain such as gmail.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`mxCount`	No
`servers`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds materially: the data is passive and possibly stale, and no live protocol interaction occurs, which is the key freshness caveat for interpreting results. It also discloses the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls uncharged), which is decision-relevant. It does not specify rate limits or typical latency, keeping it just short of 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?

Purpose, limitation, alternatives, and price are packed into one front-loaded paragraph with no filler. The related-tools clause is long but carries genuine routing value rather than repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the stated result cap, passive-data caveat, non-tested capabilities, and cost, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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, so the schema already documents the required 'domain' input including an example. The description adds only the framing that it must be a mail domain (one whose MX records matter), which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists up to 3 MX hosts with their IPv4 addresses and reports which SMTP ports (25, 465, 587) Shodan's passive scan saw open. The result cap, the data source, and the exact ports are all stated, so an agent can distinguish this from DNS-record or mail-authentication siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the agent to named alternatives for adjacent needs: security_crossdomain_xml_test for crossdomain.xml and security_smb_exposure_test for port 445 exposure. It also states the negative boundary — no SMTP conversation, banner, STARTTLS, or certificate test — making clear what class of question this tool cannot answer.

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?