Jeevesus — DugganUSA Threat Intelligence MCP
Server Details
Jeevesus saves. Threat-intel MCP, 17.9M docs, 1.13M IOCs. Search · enrich · STIX. Read-only.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: IOC lookup, full-text search, and feed summary. No overlaps in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Tool names use different patterns: verb_noun with dash (enrich-ioc), simple verb (search), and compound noun (stix-feed-summary). The inconsistency could confuse an agent about the expected action.
Three tools cover the core read-only operations of a threat intelligence service: indicator lookup, search, and feed summary. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tools provide essential read-only capabilities, but missing batch IOC lookup or direct STIX feed retrieval (noted as external). Minor gaps that do not severely hinder workflows.
Available Tools
3 toolsenrich-iocAInspect
Look up a single indicator of compromise (IP, domain, URL, or hash) in the DugganUSA corpus and return everything we know about it: threat type, malware family, source feeds, related actor (if attributed), confidence score, references, and the full description from each source. Read-only.
Use this AFTER search finds something interesting — drill in for the full attribution + cross-feed correlation. Or use it directly when triaging a single indicator from your SIEM.
Pass the IOC as either indicator or value (both work). Optional type hint: ip / domain / url / hash / auto.
Examples: indicator="185.93.3.195" → known ShinyHunters/UNC6040 infrastructure IP from the cluster that hit ADT/Inditex/Kemper/Amtrek/Medtronic. indicator="goldenleafway.lat" → fresh Apothecary/ClearFake .lat rotation domain. indicator="ee28b3137d65d74c0234eea35fa536af" → Volexity-attributed malware MD5 (BrazenBamboo/DEEPDATA campaign).
Returns found: false cleanly when the indicator isn't in our corpus — that's also a signal worth recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional type hint. Default auto-detect. | |
| value | No | Alias of `indicator`. Either field works. | |
| indicator | No | The indicator to enrich (IP, domain, URL, or hash). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'Read-only,' a key safety trait. However, it does not describe return format, rate limits, or authentication needs. Still, the read-only declaration adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and types. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should clarify return values. 'Returns known threat intel' is vague; lacks detail on what intel includes. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., 'single indicator', 'auto-detect'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool looks up a single indicator of compromise (IP, domain, URL, or hash) in a specific corpus, and differentiates from siblings 'search' and 'stix-feed-summary' which are more general or summary-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use when you have an IOC to look up but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives. No exclusion criteria or sibling differentiation beyond tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Full-text search across the DugganUSA threat-intelligence corpus — 17.9M+ indexed documents. Public indexes only, read-only, prompt-injection sanitized. Returns up to 25 hits with title, snippet, source, and timestamp. Available indexes: • iocs (1.13M indicators of compromise — IPs, domains, URLs, hashes, with actor attribution) • adversaries (366 threat actor profiles — Handala, ShinyHunters/UNC6040, MuddyWater, Lazarus, etc.) • cisa_kev (1,600+ CVEs in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, daily-synced) • pulses (16K+ OTX community pulses) • blog (1,800+ DugganUSA threat-intel blog posts including our left-of-boom predictions) • epstein_files (400K+ documents from the Epstein archive) • oz_decisions (auto-blocker decisions from our edge — 7.5M+ rows) • paranormal (3,400 fringe-research docs) • tor_relays (1.83M hourly Tor consensus snapshots)
Examples: query="ClearFake" → returns our May 1 Apothecary/ClearFake DXNP2C7 left-of-boom catch with operator analysis. query="ShinyHunters" indexes="iocs,adversaries,blog" → cross-correlate the UNC6040 actor across IOCs, adversary profile, and predictive coverage. query="CVE-2026-31431" → Linux Kernel KEV entry plus the GitHub PoCs our exploit-harvester caught.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, hard max 25). | |
| query | Yes | Search query. | |
| indexes | No | Optional comma-separated allow-listed indexes. Defaults to all public indexes. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and limits to public indexes, providing key transparency. Could be improved by mentioning rate limits or result format, but sufficient for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value (scope, read-only). Front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and safety. Could mention return format (e.g., documents with snippets) but overall sufficient for a 3-param search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context about 'public indexes only' which clarifies the indexes parameter beyond its schema description. It does not repeat schema details but adds meaningful constraint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs full-text search across a specific corpus (DugganUSA threat-intelligence), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from siblings (enrich-ioc, stix-feed-summary) by focusing on search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'public indexes only' and 'Read-only,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for private data) or provide additional context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stix-feed-summaryAInspect
Live shape report on the DugganUSA STIX 2.1 threat feed for a chosen lookback window (1-7 days). Returns total indicator count, top malware families, top source feeds, type breakdown (ip/domain/url/hash/cidr), and top countries.
Use this BEFORE pulling the full STIX bundle to gauge feed depth and freshness, plan SIEM ingestion budget, or sanity-check that a campaign you read about is actually in our corpus.
Does NOT return the full bundle — for that, fetch https://analytics.dugganusa.com/api/v1/stix-feed with the same Bearer key. The bundle is STIX 2.1 / TAXII 2.1 with Splunk ES, OPNsense, Suricata, and Unbound DNS sinkhole plugins.
Authentication required (Bearer token). Anonymous callers get a clear 401 with the registration URL.
Example: {"days": 7} returns the last week's feed shape — useful for capacity planning and spot-checking recent ingest tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (1–7). Default 1. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and requires authentication, and clarifies that it does not return the full bundle. These are key behavioral traits disclosed beyond what the schema offers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second clarifies what it is not and provides the alternative endpoint. Every piece of information earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter, no output schema, and the description explains the return type and differentiates from the full bundle, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, which already has a clear description and constraints. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns summary statistics from a specific STIX 2.1 threat feed, listing the exact types of statistics (counts by family, top source countries, last update). It also distinguishes itself from returning the full bundle, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for summary statistics) and when to use an alternative (directly fetching the full bundle via /api/v1/stix-feed). It also notes authentication is required. However, it does not compare directly with sibling tools enrich-ioc and search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!