SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks a domain against SURBL's multi-list: whether it

security_surbl_uri_lookup

Read-only

Checks a domain against SURBL's multi-list (multi.surbl.org): whether it appears in spam or phishing URI lists. Listed domains return a 127.0.0.x code. Not listed means not in SURBL's current lists, not that the domain is safe. 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_surbl_uri_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as example.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	No
`domain`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`returnCodes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: the 127.0.0.x response convention, the $0.002 USDC cost via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. However, since an output schema exists and returns are largely structured, the value added is real but modest beyond the pricing disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then the result code, then the interpretation caveat, then pricing. Every sentence carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the domain concept already covered by the schema.

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?

Single-parameter lookup with an output schema, complete schema coverage and read-only annotations — little is required. The description nonetheless covers result semantics, the false-negative caveat, and the payment model, leaving only list-specific details (which sublists, caching, lookup latency) unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with a clear 'Domain name such as example.com (required)' description. The tool description adds no format, normalization, or subdomain handling detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 a domain against SURBL's multi-list (multi.surbl.org)') and scopes the answer to spam/phishing URI listings. The named list distinguishes it implicitly from sibling reputation tools like spamhaus_zen, barracuda_reputation or spameatingmonkey, though it never explicitly routes between them.

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?

Use is implied by the spam/phishing URI framing, and the caveat 'Not listed means not in SURBL's current lists, not that the domain is safe' correctly frames how to interpret a negative result. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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?