Skip to main content
Glama
aplaceforallmystuff

MCP Threat Intel Server

threatintel_lookup_domain

Retrieve threat intelligence for a domain from AlienVault OTX and URLhaus to evaluate security risk.

Instructions

Look up a domain across threat intelligence sources (OTX, URLhaus)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name to look up

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:126-139 (registration)
    Tool definition (schema + registration) for 'threatintel_lookup_domain'. Defines the tool name, description, and input schema requiring a 'domain' string parameter.
    {
      name: "threatintel_lookup_domain",
      description: "Look up a domain across threat intelligence sources (OTX, URLhaus)",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          domain: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Domain name to look up",
          },
        },
        required: ["domain"],
      },
    },
  • Handler implementation for 'threatintel_lookup_domain'. Extracts 'domain' from args, queries OTX (if configured) for domain indicators and URLhaus for the domain, then returns combined JSON results.
    case "threatintel_lookup_domain": {
      const { domain } = args as { domain: string };
      const results: Record<string, unknown> = { domain };
    
      // OTX
      if (services.otx) {
        try {
          const otxResult = await apiRequest<unknown>(
            `${config.otx.baseUrl}/indicators/domain/${domain}/general`,
            { headers: { "X-OTX-API-KEY": config.otx.apiKey! } }
          );
          results.otx = otxResult;
        } catch (e) {
          results.otx = { error: e instanceof Error ? e.message : String(e) };
        }
      }
    
      // URLhaus
      try {
        const urlhausResult = await apiRequest<unknown>(
          config.abusech.urlhaus + "/host/",
          {
            method: "POST",
            headers: { "Content-Type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" },
            body: `host=${encodeURIComponent(domain)}`,
          }
        );
        results.urlhaus = urlhausResult;
      } catch (e) {
        results.urlhaus = { error: e instanceof Error ? e.message : String(e) };
      }
    
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(results, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Generic apiRequest helper used by the handler to make HTTP GET/POST requests to external threat intel APIs.
    async function apiRequest<T>(
      url: string,
      options: RequestInit = {}
    ): Promise<T> {
      const response = await fetch(url, {
        ...options,
        headers: {
          "Content-Type": "application/json",
          "Accept": "application/json",
          ...(options.headers || {}),
        },
      });
    
      if (!response.ok) {
        const text = await response.text();
        throw new Error(`API error ${response.status}: ${text}`);
      }
    
      return response.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. It only states the action and sources, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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?

The description is a single sentence with 9 words, containing only essential information (verb, resource, sources). No wasteful or redundant content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is short and does not explain the return format or any additional context. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves gaps for an agent expecting detailed guidance.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds context about threat intelligence sources, which provides slight additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (look up), resource (domain), and specific sources (OTX, URLhaus), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools for hash, IP, and URL lookups.

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 usage for domain threat intelligence but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but no when-not guidance is given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aplaceforallmystuff/mcp-threatintel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server