Screen an IP address against AbuseIPDB and AlienVault OTX threat feeds to return a composite risk score, threat categories, malware families, and full source data.
IP reputation and malicious-IP check — screens an address against AbuseIPDB and AlienVault OTX threat feeds and returns a composite risk score, threat categories, malware families, and full source data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the external data sources and some return contents, and the verb 'screens' implies a read-only lookup, but it omits auth/rate-limit behavior, error handling, and any explicit confirmation that the operation is non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently names the resource, the sources checked, and the key outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, where data comes from, and what is returned. It is only slightly incomplete on input format and how the composite risk score should be interpreted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the bare 'ip' parameter. It only says 'an address' and does not clarify IPv4/IPv6 support, expected format, or whether CIDR/hostname inputs are valid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('IP reputation and malicious-IP check') and names the external threat feeds (AbuseIPDB, AlienVault OTX) plus the return contents. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like netintel_ip_risk, netintel_ip_blacklist, or netintel_ip_report, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative IP intelligence tools in the sibling list. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, leaving selection against similar tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.