Skip to main content
Glama

Abuseipdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Report Ip

report_ip
Read-onlyIdempotent

Report an abusive IP address to AbuseIPDB. Requires category IDs (e.g., "18,22" for DDoS + SSH brute force). Returns the updated abuse confidence score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address to report (e.g., "118.25.6.39")
_apiKeyYesAbuseIPDB API key
commentYesDescription of the abuse (e.g., "SSH brute force attack from this IP")
categoriesYesComma-separated category IDs (e.g., "18,22"). Common: 3=Fraud, 4=DDoS, 14=Port Scan, 18=Brute Force, 22=SSH, 23=Telnet

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesThe reported IP address
reportedYesConfirmation that the IP was reported successfully
abuse_confidence_scoreYesUpdated abuse confidence score after report

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Report' and 'Returns the updated abuse confidence score,' implying a state-changing write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: the description describes a write while the annotation claims read-only. This inconsistency is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke the 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by the key requirement and return value. Zero waste.

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?

The description covers purpose, key requirement, and return value, and the schema/annotations fill in parameter and safety details. However, it lacks usage context to differentiate from sibling tools and the contradiction with readOnlyHint creates confusion, leaving notable gaps.

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% with all four parameters described in detail, including category IDs and examples. The description's mention of '18,22' for DDoS + SSH brute force merely repeats what the schema already provides, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 the tool reports an abusive IP address to AbuseIPDB, with a specific verb ('Report') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_ip, which likely checks reputation instead of submitting a report.

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?

The description implies usage for reporting abusive IPs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as check_ip or get_blacklist. It lacks exclusions or explicit 'use this when' guidance.

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

All Abuseipdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are near-duplicates today, the Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, bet_research) have partially overlapping discovery purposes, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap on single vs multi-entity checks. These overlaps create real misselection risk, though the rest of the set splits cleanly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions vary noticeably: verb_noun for actions (check_ip, report_ip, list_subscriptions), domain-prefixed nouns for the Polymarket cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and brand-prefixed meta tools (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). Subfamilies are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes patterns.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already past the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is the server name: Abuseipdb should have a handful of IP-abuse tools, yet only 3 of 34 actually relate to AbuseIPDB. The remaining 31 tools form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory suite, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the declared AbuseIPDB domain, only check, report, and blacklist are covered; obvious gaps remain like removing/clearing a false report, bulk IP checks, or category metadata. The broader set is a grab bag of unrelated capabilities, so no single domain gets complete lifecycle coverage, and the nominal AbuseIPDB surface is thin and diluted.

Resources