SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks an IPv4 address against the public X4BNet list

security_vpn_proxy_detector

Read-only

Checks an IPv4 address against the public X4BNet list of commercial VPN provider address ranges (about 11,000 CIDR blocks, refreshed by the list's maintainer). Returns whether the address falls in a listed VPN range and which range. A miss does not prove a direct connection, and IPv6 is not covered. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_tls_alpn_detector when you need reports which newer HTTP protocols a site advertises. 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_vpn_proxy_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 2.26.157.10 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`isVpn`	No
`range`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`rangesInList`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld; the description adds materially new behavior: the list is third-party maintained and refreshed, the result is a boolean plus the matching range, and a negative is not proof of a direct connection. It also discloses billing mechanics (x402 payment of $0.002 USDC per successful call, failures not charged), which is critical context for deciding whether to call it.

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?

Core purpose, caveats, and cost are front-loaded in dense, waste-free sentences. The sibling sentence is awkwardly worded ('when you need reports which newer HTTP protocols a site advertises') and adds little, but it costs only one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: dataset provenance, coverage limits, negative-result interpretation, and pricing. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the baseline. The description reinforces the format constraint by explicitly excluding IPv6 and identifying the input as an IPv4 address, a small but real addition over the schema example alone.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (an IPv4 address) against a named dataset (the public X4BNet list of commercial VPN provider CIDR ranges, ~11,000 blocks). The scope is precise enough to separate it from siblings like security_tor_exit_nodes or security_abuseipdb_check without inspecting 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit boundaries: a miss does not prove a direct connection, and IPv6 is not covered, which tells the agent when the answer is inconclusive. It names one sibling for a different need, but that sibling (TLS ALPN detection) is unrelated to VPN detection, so the agent gets no routing guidance toward the actually adjacent tools such as tor exit nodes or threat-intel lookups.

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?