Skip to main content
Glama
jmaciasc-google

Google Threat Intelligence MCP Server

search_iocs

Search for indicators of compromise across files, URLs, domains, and IPs in Google Threat Intelligence with customizable queries and ordering.

Instructions

Search Indicators of Compromise (IOC) in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.

You can search by for different IOC types using the entity modifier. Below, the different IOC types and the supported orders:

Entity type

Supported orders

Default order

file

first_submission_date, last_submission_date, positives, times_submitted, size

last_submission_date-

url

first_submission_date, last_submission_date, positives, times_submitted, status

last_submission_date-

domain

creation_date, last_modification_date, last_update_date, positives

last_modification_date-

ip

ip, last_modification_date, positives

last_modification_date-

Note: The entity modifier can only be used ONCE per query.

You can find all available modifers at:

With integer modifers, use the - and + characters to indicate:

  • Greater than: p:60+

  • Less than: p:60-

  • Equal to: p:60

Args query (required): Search query to find IOCs. limit: Limit the number of IoCs to retrieve. 10 by default. order_by: Order the results. "last_submission_date-" by default.

Returns: List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
order_byNolast_submission_date-

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the query syntax, default behavior (limit 10, order_by default), and constraints (entity modifier once). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but those are likely global. The description is transparent about the search behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear introduction, table, notes, and parameter explanations. While lengthy, the table and links are valuable. It is front-loaded with purpose. A slightly shorter version could exist, but it earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the schema richness (3 params, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers query syntax, modifiers, entity-specific ordering, constraints, and defaults. No gaps are apparent for using the tool effectively.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter meaningfully: 'query' as search query, 'limit' with default 10, 'order_by' with default and a full table of supported values per entity type. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Search Indicators of Compromise (IOC) in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It specifies the resource (IOCs) and differentiates from sibling tools like search_threats by focusing on IOC-specific search modifiers and entity types.

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 provides detailed guidance on syntax, entity types, supported orders, and modifier constraints, including explicit notes about the `entity` modifier being used once. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus sibling search tools, which would elevate clarity.

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/jmaciasc-google/gti-mcp-server'

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