Threatfox

Search Ioc

search_ioc

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a specific indicator of compromise (IP, domain, URL, hash, etc.). Returns matching IOCs with malware family, confidence, threat-type, first/last seen, tags, references.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`indicator`	Yes	IP / domain / URL / hash to look up
`exact_match`	No	Require exact match (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Number of results returned
`query`	Yes	The query type sent (search_ioc)
`status`	Yes	Query status (ok, no_result, or null)
`results`	Yes	Matching IOC records with malware family, confidence, threat-type, dates, tags, references

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "indicator": "192.0.2.42"
-  },
-  {
-    "exact_match": false,
-    "indicator": "evil.example.com"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "indicator": "105.72.55.52:8080"
+  },
+  {
+    "indicator": "ladifo.workers.dev"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "indicator": "192.0.2.42"
+  },
+  {
+    "exact_match": false,
+    "indicator": "evil.example.com"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of results returned",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "description": "The query type sent (search_ioc)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Matching IOC records with malware family, confidence, threat-type, dates, tags, references",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Query status (ok, no_result, or null)",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "query",
+    "status",
+    "count",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the tool returns matching IOCs with fields like malware family, confidence, threat-type, and references. It does not contradict any annotation and adds value beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear action sentence followed by a concise list of returned attributes. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description plus structured fields provide enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how this differs from specialized sibling search tools, but nothing critical is missing for a basic call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the `indicator` and `exact_match` parameters adequately. The description restates that indicators can be IPs, domains, URLs, or hashes, but this adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Look up a specific indicator of compromise' and enumerates the accepted IOC types. It also lists what is returned, making the tool's function concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_hash or search_malware, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you have a specific IP, domain, URL, or hash to look up. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search_hash or recent_iocs, but the intended use is not merely implied.

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

All Threatfox tools Inspect

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.