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

crowdsec-ops-mcp

by frli4797
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

crowdsec_health

Check CrowdSec backend health, verify configuration presence, and inspect exposed capabilities without revealing secrets. Optionally fetch sample counts of decisions and alerts.

Instructions

Report read-only CrowdSec MCP backend health, configuration presence, and exposed capabilities without exposing secrets.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crowdsec_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_sample_countsNoAlso fetch tiny decision and alert sample counts. This may touch CrowdSec backends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions read-only and no secrets, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or what 'exposed capabilities' include. Lacks detail on side effects of include_sample_counts parameter.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Adequate for a simple health check tool with one optional parameter and no annotations. However, lacks output schema or description of return format, which would help the agent interpret results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds context about include_sample_counts potentially touching backends, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'report' and resources 'health, configuration presence, and exposed capabilities'. Read-only nature distinguishes from sibling tools like ban_ip or recent_crowdsec_alerts.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies use for health checking but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools suggest different purposes, but no guidance on when to choose this tool over others like security_summary.

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