Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP OSINT Server

MCP OSINT Server

by abrahamhl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ioc_search

Search indicators of compromise by IP, domain, hash, or URL to identify potential threats and support OSINT investigations.

Instructions

Search indicators of compromise

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "ioc_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, what data source is queried, or any rate limits. Only the word 'Search' weakly implies a non-mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves key operational details (source, result shape, input format) unstated. It is too thin for a tool with an enum parameter and zero schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description adds no meaning to 'query' (e.g., indicator format, defanging rules) or to the 'type' enum (ip/domain/hash/url), leaving the agent to guess acceptable input.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: searching indicators of compromise. An agent understands the function, though the one-line phrasing gives no scope detail (e.g., which IOC corpus or source) to sharpen it further.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as sanctions_screen or evidence_verify, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools