SiteCheck Web Intel

Spamhaus blocklist check through Spamhaus's official Data

security_spamhaus_zen

Read-only

Spamhaus blocklist check through Spamhaus's official Data Query Service: an IPv4 address against ZEN (SBL spam sources, CSS snowshoe, XBL exploited/botnet hosts, DROP hijacked ranges, PBL end-user ranges) or a domain against the Domain Block List (spam, phishing, malware, botnet C&C, abused legitimate domains). Returns listed yes/no, every return code with the list it means, and Spamhaus's lookup link. Point-in-time answer. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "security_spamhaus_zen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No	IPv4 address, e.g. 127.0.0.2 (Spamhaus test entry)
`domain`	No	Domain name instead of an IP, e.g. dbltest.com (Spamhaus DBL test entry)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`zone`	No
`lists`	No
`listed`	No
`lookup`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`returnCodes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are free, and that the answer is point-in-time with no historical or cached dimension. It also states the return contents (listed yes/no, per-code list meanings, lookup link), though it stops short of describing rate limits or timeout behavior.

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 capability and list coverage are front-loaded in the first sentence, with cost and charge semantics correctly deferred to the end. The parenthetical enumerations of Spamhaus list acronyms are dense but functional; the text does not pad with marketing language.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description supplies more than enough — list coverage, return shape, cost, and point-in-time semantics. The one meaningful hole is the absence of any statement about the required combination of ip/domain given required_parameters=0, which would prevent a degenerate call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a step up by mapping each parameter to its target list (IPv4 to ZEN's SBL/CSS/XBL/DROP/PBL, domain to the DBL categories), which the schema does not convey. It still omits what happens when both or neither parameter is supplied.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Spamhaus blocklist check through Spamhaus's official Data Query Service') and enumerates exactly what ZEN and DBL cover, so an agent can tell it is the Spamhaus-specific lookup rather than a generic reputation check. It never names a sibling such as security_blocklist_de or security_talos_ip_blacklist, so differentiation is by content rather than by explicit routing.

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?

The 'IP against ZEN or domain against DBL' construction implies the two usage modes and the schema examples (127.0.0.2, dbltest.com) hint at test entries, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement that ip and domain are mutually exclusive despite zero required parameters. The $0.002 cost implicitly warns against gratuitous calls, which is the only quasi-guidance 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?