Skip to main content
Glama
zb-ss

Servonaut

by zb-ss
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

block_ip

Block or unblock an IP/CIDR for a site by resolving the right AWS layer (WebACL, SG/NACL), reversible but requiring user confirmation.

Instructions

Block (or unblock) an IP/CIDR at the layer that actually works. Resolves the best layer for 'site' (WebACL/ALB ARN or instance): prefers the WebACL (sees the real client IP behind an ALB), falls back to a configured SG/NACL, and otherwise recommends the host layer rather than silently editing the firewall. Reversible. DANGEROUS — confirm with the user first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIP address or CIDR to block/unblock.
siteYesWebACL ARN, ALB ARN, or instance id/name.
actionNo'block' or 'unblock'.block
regionNoAWS region override.
accountNoAWS account label a WebACL/ALB ARN site (or a named ban config) is in; omit for the default account. An instance site always uses its own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "AWS account label a WebACL/ALB ARN site (or a named ban config) is in; omit for the default account. An instance site always uses its own account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.24.0
  3. Removedv2.23.8
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses layer selection logic, fallback behavior, reversibility, and a danger warning, and notes it will recommend rather than silently edit the firewall. It omits auth/permission requirements and exact side effects on existing rules, but is otherwise rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by precision on layer resolution and a safety flag. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a dangerous mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and safety adequately. It could go further on what unblock does or how existing rules are affected, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the 'site' parameter resolves across layers (WebACL preference, SG/NACL fallback, host-layer recommendation), enriching understanding of a key parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (block/unblock) and resource (IP/CIDR) and explains its unique layer-resolution behavior, which distinguishes it from simple firewall edits. The phrase 'at the layer that actually works' and the fallback logic make its scope clear without opening the schema.

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?

It implies when to use it (blocking/unblocking an IP) and includes a critical safety warning ('DANGEROUS — confirm with the user first'), but it never names or contrasts with alternatives like the sibling ip_ban_set or waf_rate_rule_set. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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