Retrieve AbuseIPDB's blacklist of reported malicious IP addresses for threat blocking and investigation. Filter by confidence score and result limit.
Get AbuseIPDB's blacklist of the most reported malicious IP addresses. Requires ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 100) | |
| confidence | No | Min confidence score (default 90) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API-key authentication requirement, which is genuine value, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or whether the list is cached/updated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero waste; the purpose leads and the auth prerequisite follows. Nothing redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-param read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient and does indicate the returned resource (blacklist of IPs). It lacks any note on result shape/pagination, but with no output schema that gap is minor for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with limit and confidence both documented including defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (AbuseIPDB blacklist of most reported malicious IPs), so an agent understands it returns a curated threat list rather than a per-IP lookup. It is distinguishable from siblings like abuseipdb_check and abuseipdb_reports, though it does not name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes the ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY prerequisite but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over abuseipdb_check/abuseipdb_reports, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a bulk blacklist pull versus a targeted lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.