SiteCheck Web Intel

Cisco Talos reputation for an IPv4 address: threat level

security_talos_ip_blacklist

Read-only

Cisco Talos reputation for an IPv4 address: threat level (favorable, neutral, poor, untrusted), web reputation score, forward/reverse DNS match, hostname, owner, location, email volume magnitude (daily, monthly and last 30 days), the /24 network's average magnitude and how many neighbouring addresses in that /24 Talos rates untrusted, poor, neutral or favorable. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_ip_geolocation_asn when you need IPv4 or IPv6 address → covering BGP prefix, origin. 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_talos_ip_blacklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	Public IPv4 address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`source`	No
`dnsMatch`	No
`hostname`	No
`location`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`blockLists`	No
`last30Days`	No
`contextTags`	No
`emailVolume`	No
`threatLevel`	No
`neighbours24`	No
`organisation`	No
`webReputation`	No
`spamProbability`	No
`threatCategories`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged — material for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It does not disclose rate limits, caching, or latency, so it falls 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Pricing and the sibling pointer are well placed, but the middle of the description is a dense enumeration of return fields that duplicates what the output schema already provides. The core purpose is front-loaded, yet roughly half the text is redundant payload an agent does not need in order to select or call the tool.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: cost, payment mechanism, and the nearest alternative. Return values need not be explained given the output schema, making the field enumeration surplus rather than a completeness gain. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 ('Public IPv4 address'), so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the IPv4-only scope but adds no new constraint detail such as format expectations or behavior on private/reserved ranges.

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?

The description names a specific resource and provider (Cisco Talos reputation for an IPv4 address) and enumerates the headline data points (threat level, web reputation score, DNS match, magnitude). It is distinguishable from sibling reputation tools by naming the vendor explicitly. The only weakness is that the core purpose is stated as a noun phrase buried ahead of a long field list rather than a crisp verb+resource sentence.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: use security_ip_geolocation_asn when the need is BGP prefix/origin rather than reputation. However, it offers no guidance relative to the many other reputation siblings (security_abuseipdb_check, security_ipsum_threat_level, security_spamhaus_zen), and no when-not conditions such as IPv6 unsupported or private addresses excluded.

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?