Skip to main content
Glama

Nullcone Threat Intelligence

by io.github.maco144

get_new_threats

Drain the live push-subscription buffer of threats received since the
last call. Zero-polling — threats are delivered via SpacetimeDB WebSocket
subscription and buffered server-side.

Use this instead of poll_since() when you need sub-second latency without
maintaining your own WebSocket connection. The MCP server maintains the
subscription; you just drain the buffer on demand.

Args:
    drain: If True (default), clear the buffer after returning. Set False
           to peek without consuming.

Returns:
    signatures: list of new threat signatures received since last drain
    count:      number of signatures returned
    buffered:   total currently in buffer (equals count if drain=True)
    push_active: whether the background subscription is running

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drainNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Although annotations are not provided, the description offers substantial behavioral information: it explains the zero-polling mechanism, the server-side buffering, and the effect of the drain parameter (clearing vs peeking). However, it does not mention potential side effects like blocking behavior, error conditions, or rate limits, so full transparency is slightly limited.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, using bullet points for parameters and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff and directly conveys the tool's purpose and usage. The format is easy to parse and understand.

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?

The description provides context about the push subscription, the buffer, and lists the return fields (signatures, count, buffered, push_active). It is fairly complete for a tool definition, though it does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases. Given the lack of an output schema, the return list is helpful and covers the expected outputs adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, 'drain', is fully described in the description: it defaults to true and its behavior is clarified (clears buffer when true, peeks without consuming when false). This satisfies the parameter semantics dimension completely.

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 clearly states that the tool drains a live push-subscription buffer of threats, using a verb 'drain' that is specific to the action. It distinguishes itself from poll_since by highlighting zero-polling and server-side buffering via WebSocket subscription. The resource (threat buffer) and the operation are well-defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly recommends using this tool instead of poll_since when sub-second latency is needed and when the user does not want to maintain a WebSocket connection. This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over a named alternative, fulfilling the usage guideline criteria.

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

All Nullcone Threat Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap among threat-fetching methods: get_new_threats, poll_since, and drain_subscription all retrieve new threats via different mechanisms, and several stats tools (get_stats, freshness_limits, prompt_cache_stats) serve similar informational roles. Overall, descriptions help disambiguate, but a few tools could be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is predominantly snake_case, but mixes verb_noun (check_freshness, submit_ioc), noun phrases (family_threats, freshness_limits), and even a question (is_ioc_revoked). 'unsubscribe' breaks the pattern of other subscription tools (subscribe_threats, drain_subscription). This inconsistency is noticeable though still readable.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical 15-tool comfort zone. However, the server covers a broad domain—IOC submission, retrieval, subscriptions, freshness tracking, prompt/skill scanning, and registry monitoring—so the large number is somewhat justified by the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full threat intelligence lifecycle: submit (submit_ioc, submit_batch), query (lookup_ioc, search_by_type, recent_threats, family_threats), subscribe (subscribe_threats, drain_subscription), update (report_detection, vote_false_positive), and revoke (revoke_ioc). Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of a direct delete or update signature tool and no get-by-signature-id endpoint, but these are manageable for agents.

Resources