ThreatWatch MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add Watch

add_watch

Add an IP, domain, URL, or hash to a real-time watch-list to monitor threat status, with periodic re-scans and alerts on malicious or suspicious changes.

Instructions

Add an IOC to the real-time watch-list. ThreatWatch will periodically re-scan it and flag changes in threat status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ioc`	Yes	The indicator to monitor (IP, domain, URL, hash).
`label`	No	Optional human-readable label (e.g. "customer gateway").
`alert_on`	No	List of severities to alert on. Options: "malicious", "suspicious", "any_change". Default: ["malicious", "suspicious"].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 discloses key behavior: periodic re-scanning and flagging of threat-status changes. It doesn't cover auth requirements, rate limits, or whether additions are idempotent, which limits it from 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste; the behavioral trait (periodic rescan / change flagging) is front-loaded immediately after the core action.

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?

Complete enough for a 3-parameter mutation tool: it explains the watch-list mechanism and what the tool will do over time, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It could be richer on auth or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents ioc, label, and alert_on (including severity options and defaults). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (IOC to the real-time watch-list), and contrasts with siblings like analyze_ioc (one-shot) and remove_watch/list_watches (lifecycle counterpart). An agent can identify it as the creation operation for the watch-list without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it (to track an IOC over time via periodic re-scan) versus one-shot siblings like analyze_ioc. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server