SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks an IPv4 mail-sending address against

security_spameatingmonkey

Read-only

Checks an IPv4 mail-sending address against the SpamEatingMonkey DNS blocklist (bl.spameatingmonkey.net) through public DNS. A listed address returns its 127.0.0.x return code; an unlisted one returns no record. Listings change often; this is a point-in-time answer. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_security_headers when you need to check the live HTTP response headers of a site's home page. 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_spameatingmonkey"
  }
}

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
`zone`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`returnCodes`	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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return semantics (127.0.0.x code for listed, no record for unlisted), the point-in-time nature of listings, and the pricing model including that failed calls are not charged. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it could further explain what different 127.0.0.x values mean.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is generally efficient. The sentence about security_security_headers is somewhat tangential for this tool's need, but it does not obscure the main definition.

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 simple DNS blocklist lookup with an output schema, 100% schema coverage, and basic annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers purpose, output semantics, ephemerality, and cost; the only minor gap is not detailing the meaning of different 127.0.0.x return codes, which the output schema may handle.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single ip parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'mail-sending address', which frames the parameter's intended use, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: it checks an IPv4 mail-sending address against the SpamEatingMonkey DNS blocklist at bl.spameatingmonkey.net. This is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from unrelated security tools and understand exactly what lookup is performed.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this blocklist over sibling tools such as security_spamhaus_zen, security_barracuda_reputation, or security_blocklist_de. The only named sibling, security_security_headers, is for a different need and does not help select between blocklist checkers.

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?