SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks whether a host is known to abuse.ch URLhaus

security_urlhaus_malware

Read-only

Checks whether a host (domain or IP) is known to abuse.ch URLhaus as a malware distribution host: first seen, number of malware URLs, Spamhaus DBL / SURBL status and the latest URLs with status (online/offline), threat type, tags, reporter and URLhaus reference. 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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "security_urlhaus_malware"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Domain or IPv4 address, e.g. 221.15.252.30 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`urlCount`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`firstSeen`	No
`onlineNow`	No
`reference`	No
`blacklists`	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/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the cost model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. That is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling a paid external service, though rate limits or response latency are unstated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the second sentence packs return fields plus pricing without filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative, not padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value list is technically redundant, but the description still covers the input, the source of truth (URLhaus), and the payment precondition — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only guidance on when another threat feed would be a better fit.

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 coverage is 100% with one required parameter already documented with an IPv4 example. The description restates that host means 'domain or IP', which corroborates but does not materially extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource — check whether a host (domain or IP) is a known abuse.ch URLhaus malware distribution host — and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish this feed lookup from siblings like security_spamhaus_zen or security_threatfox_iocs 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose implies the usage context (threat-intel vetting of a host), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as security_surbl_uri_lookup or security_phishtank_check. An agent must infer routing from the feed name alone.

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?