Fetch recent indicators of compromise from ThreatFox (abuse.ch) for the last 1–7 days to support threat investigations and IOC enrichment.
Get recent IOCs from ThreatFox (abuse.ch). Returns indicators of compromise reported in the last N days. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look back (1-7, default 3) |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful auth requirement (ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY) and recency scope, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, result size limits, or return structure.
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?
Three short sentences with zero wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return scope and the auth prerequisite in a logical sequence.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers source, scope, and authentication. It is nearly complete, though it omits return-format details that could help with an absent output schema.
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%, so the 'days' parameter is fully documented with type, default, and range in the schema. The description only repeats 'last N days' and adds no syntax, filtering, or format detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Get recent IOCs from ThreatFox'), names the source (abuse.ch), and defines the scope ('last N days'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools threatfoxSearch, threatfoxTag, or threatfoxMalware, leaving an agent to infer which ThreatFox endpoint fits a given query.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives for selecting this over sibling ThreatFox tools. The only prerequisite mentioned is ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY; there is no context about when recent IOC retrieval is appropriate versus searching by tag or malware.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.