Skip to main content
Glama

HTTPfy network & DNS tools

IP blacklist (DNSBL) check

ip_blacklist_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a public IPv4 address is listed on common DNS-based blocklists such as Spamhaus, Barracuda and SpamCop.

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_address": "<ip_address>"
    },
    "name": "ip_blacklist_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ip_addressYesIP Address (Enter IP Address)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real constraint — public IPv4 only, against named third-party lists — but says nothing about what a result looks like (per-list hit/miss), latency, or query limits, and there is no output schema to cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier and the example blocklists both earn their place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool the core is present, but with no output schema the description should indicate what comes back — a per-blocklist listed/not-listed result — and what happens with non-public or IPv6 input. Those gaps leave the agent guessing at the response shape.

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%, but the schema text is near-tautological ('IP Address (Enter IP Address)'), so the description's 'public IPv4 address' is the only place the address family and routability constraint are stated. That is useful added meaning, but it stops short of format examples or behavior for private/invalid input.

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+resource ('Check whether a public IPv4 address is listed') and names the concrete blocklists consulted (Spamhaus, Barracuda, SpamCop). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ip_whois or dns_lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (IP reputation / deliverability checks) but never stated as when-to-use. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over ip_whois or dns_lookup, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.