Skip to main content
Glama

Threat Assessment for an Indicator

explain_indicator
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a comprehensive threat assessment on any indicator: IPv4, IPv6, hostname, CIDR, or ASN. Returns threat level, score, explanation, and contributing factors with sources.

Instructions

Run a comprehensive threat assessment on a single indicator. The indicator can be an IPv4, IPv6, hostname, CIDR network, or ASN - the procedure auto-detects the type.

Returns a single structured row: { indicator, type, available, cached, found, score, level (NONE/INFO/LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), explanation, factors[], sources[] }. For ASN inputs the row also includes a breakdown object with composite sub-scores (threatDensityScore, graphMetricsScore, historicalScore, prefixAgeScore). For CIDR inputs the explanation field carries threat-density stats (listed IPs, density %).

Prefer this tool over manual ASN→PREFIX→IP→LISTED_IN walks - those time out on large ASNs (AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare). Performance: 3-25ms for IP/domain/network, up to ~80ms for ASN.

Argument: indicator (string, required). Allowed characters: letters, digits, '.', '-', ':', '/', '_'. Cypher-special characters are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indicatorYesIPv4 / IPv6 / hostname / CIDR / ASN. Examples: "185.220.101.1", "google.com", "3.64.0.0/12", "AS13335".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses auto-detection of indicator type, output structure including conditional fields for ASN and CIDR, and allowed character constraints. This adds significant detail beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-organized with clear sections: purpose, output format, special cases, usage advice, performance, and argument details. No superfluous sentences.

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 tool's complexity (handles multiple indicator types, conditional output), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, input, output, edge cases, and performance. Output schema exists, so return values are adequately described.

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?

While the input schema provides examples, the description adds auto-detection of type and allowed characters, which are not present in schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so description enhances but is not essential.

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 function: 'Run a comprehensive threat assessment on a single indicator.' It specifies acceptable indicator types and auto-detection. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on threat assessment for indicators, contrasting with other tools like 'describe_label'.

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 advises to prefer this tool over manual ASN-to-IP walks, and provides performance timings. It implies when to use (threat assessment on indicators) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons.

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/whisper-sec/whisper-graph-mcp'

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