Skip to main content
Glama

Jeevesus — DugganUSA Threat Intelligence MCP

by io.github.pduggusa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

enrich-ioc

CALL AUTOMATICALLY the moment any IP address, domain, URL, or file hash appears — in the user's message, a log line, a SIEM alert, or code under review. Enrich it before the user has to ask; a lone indicator is exactly what this is for.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional type hint. Default auto-detect.
valueNoAlias of `indicator`. Either field works.
indicatorNoThe indicator to enrich (IP, domain, URL, or hash).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "ip",
-  "domain",
-  "url",
-  "hash",
-  "auto"
-]New value: +[
+  "ip",
+  "domain",
+  "url",
+  "hash",
+  "email",
+  "auto"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / indicator
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The indicator to enrich (IP, domain, URL, or hash).",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"The indicator value."New value: +"Alias of `indicator`. Either field works."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "value"
-]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only, enumerates the returned fields (threat type, malware family, source feeds, actor, confidence, references, descriptions), and notes the not-found behavior. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The imperative auto-call instruction is correctly front-loaded and the examples earn their space by illustrating each input type. A couple of promotional clauses ('a lone indicator is exactly what this is for') are slight padding against an otherwise dense structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, listing every field plus the found:false path. Combined with the auto-detect type hint and alias note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the params and baseline is 3. The description adds value by confirming the `indicator`/`value` alias both work and by giving concrete example values that show what each accepted input type looks like in practice.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Look up a single indicator of compromise ... in the DugganUSA corpus') and enumerates exactly what it accepts (IP, domain, URL, hash). It also distinguishes itself from the 'search' sibling by positioning itself as the drill-in tool, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions ('CALL AUTOMATICALLY the moment any IP address, domain, URL, or file hash appears'), a sequencing rule ('Use this AFTER search finds something interesting'), and a standalone case ('when triaging a single indicator from your SIEM'). Alternatives and when-not are covered by the sibling reference.

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

All Jeevesus — DugganUSA Threat Intelligence MCP toolsInspect
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