vulnerability-exposure-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

AbuseIPDB reports

abuseipdb_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a public IPv4 or IPv6 address (not domains) against AbuseIPDB to retrieve abuse reports and a confidence score for IP reputation and exposure risk; requires an API key.

Instructions

AbuseIPDB abuse reports and confidence score for a public IP address (not domains). Needs ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ip_address": "<ip_address>"
    },
    "name": "abuseipdb_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip_address`	Yes	A public IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. '8.8.8.8'.
`investigation_id`	No	The investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Oct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / investigation_id / description

Added value: +"The investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own."

addedInput schema / properties / ip_address / description

Added value: +"A public IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. '8.8.8.8'."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable auth context (needs ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY), but says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior on missing keys, or what the returned report/score data looks like despite there being no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome and followed by the prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level (reports + confidence score), input constraints, and auth requirements. Only the shape/magnitude of returned evidence is under-specified, which is tolerable given the small surface.

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% and the schema already documents ip_address format and the investigation_id linkage in detail. The description only reinforces that the address must be a public IP and not a domain — a modest addition over the schema, so 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/resource ('abuse reports and confidence score') tied to an explicit input domain (public IP address) and explicitly excludes domains. An agent can distinguish it from resolvers and other threat-intel siblings without reading 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?

Names a clear exclusion ('not domains') that routes the agent to resolve_domain, and states the ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY prerequisite so failures are anticipated. It stops short of saying when to prefer virustotal_check or threat_lists_check over this source.

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