crowdsec-ops-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

decision_inventory

Inspect active CrowdSec decisions using filters like IP, country, or scenario. View grouped counts, detect long-lived or expiring entries, and sample representative rows for rapid security analysis.

Instructions

Summarize active CrowdSec decisions with filters, grouped counts, expiry views, and representative rows.

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": "decision_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ip`	No	IPv4 or IPv6 address to inspect or operate on.
`asn`	No	Filter by ASN name.
`limit`	No
`action`	No	Filter by decision action, such as ban or captcha.
`origin`	No	Filter by decision origin.
`country`	No	Filter by source country code.
`scenario`	No	Filter by CrowdSec scenario.
`long_lived_days`	No
`expiring_soon_hours`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Indicates read-only aggregation (summarize, views). Does not disclose potential side effects, pagination, or performance limits, but lack of destructive hints suggests safe operation.

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, no unnecessary words, effectively communicates core functionality. Every element (filters, grouped counts, expiry views, representative rows) adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. 'Representative rows' is vague. While 9 parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates with feature enumeration, but lacks detail on what rows contain, error handling, or limits.

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 67% (6 of 9 params documented). Description adds context about expiry views (related to long_lived_days and expiring_soon_hours) but does not fully compensate for missing parameter semantics on limit and other fields.

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 it summarizes active CrowdSec decisions with specific features (filters, grouped counts, expiry views, representative rows). Distinguishes from siblings like recent_crowdsec_decisions (list) and inspect_ip (single IP).

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?

Description implies use for aggregated overview but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., for simple lists use recent_crowdsec_decisions). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server