Skip to main content
Glama

Nullcone Threat Intelligence

by io.github.maco144

submit_batch

Submit multiple IOCs in a single call. Preferred over looping submit_ioc
for bulk ingest from honeypots, sandboxes, or feed processing.

Each dict in `iocs` follows the same schema as submit_ioc parameters.
Required keys: ioc_type, value. All others are optional.

Returns one result dict per input IOC in the same order.

Args:
    iocs: List of IOC dicts. Each must have 'ioc_type' and 'value'.
          Optional: severity, confidence, context, tags, source, family_hint

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iocsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: each dict must have 'ioc_type' and 'value', and results are returned per input in the same order. However, it does not mention failure semantics, partial batch behavior, rate limits, or size limits, which are significant for a batch mutation tool.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, parameter contract, and return behavior. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 single-parameter batch tool with an output schema, the description covers the key contract: what each item must contain, what is optional, and the ordered per-item response. Missing details like batch size limits and error handling prevent a perfect score, but the core usage is complete.

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?

The input schema only defines 'iocs' as an array of objects with additionalProperties true, giving almost no meaning. The description compensates well by specifying required keys, optional keys, and the mapping to submit_ioc parameters. It stops short of fully defining each optional field's semantics, so not a 5.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Submit multiple IOCs in a single call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_ioc by explicitly positioning itself as the bulk alternative and stating the use cases.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Preferred over looping submit_ioc for bulk ingest from honeypots, sandboxes, or feed processing') and names the alternative (submit_ioc). This gives an agent clear decision context.

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