Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crowdsec-ops-mcp

crowdsec-ops-mcp

by frli4797
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ban_ip

Prepare and audit a cscli command to add a CrowdSec ban decision for a specific IP, returning the command for review without executing changes.

Instructions

Prepare and audit a potential cscli command to add a CrowdSec ban decision for one IP. The MCP does not execute it.

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": "<ip>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "ban_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 or IPv6 address to inspect or operate on.
reasonYes
executeNoLegacy no-op flag. The MCP never executes writes; it only prepares an audited potential cscli command.
durationNo4h

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not execute the command, only prepares it for audit. This is a critical behavioral trait beyond what might be assumed.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral point (no execution) and purpose, but lacks details on return format, parameter explanations for reason and duration, and how the command is presented to the user.

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 description coverage is 50%. The description adds context for the 'execute' parameter, clarifying it is a legacy no-op. However, 'reason' and 'duration' are not explained beyond defaults, so the description only partially compensates.

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 tool prepares and audits a potential cscli command to add a CrowdSec ban for one IP, explicitly noting it does not execute. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unban_ip and allow_ip.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unban_ip or allow_ip. It only implies it is for preparing a command for review.

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