Skip to main content
Glama
zb-ss

Servonaut

by zb-ss
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ip_ban_set

Ban or unban single IPs, CIDRs, or bulk lists via named WAF/SecurityGroup/NACL configs or a site's WebACL. Blocks or restores live AWS traffic rules.

Instructions

Ban or unban IP(s)/CIDR(s) via a named WAF/SecurityGroup/NACL config OR via a site's WebACL. Accepts a single ip_address (IP or CIDR), a bulk ip_addresses[] list, or a 'site' (WebACL ARN, ALB ARN, or instance id/name) that resolves the WebACL actually fronting the box. Returns an applied/failed split. Mutates live traffic rules — confirm with the user first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cidrNoAlias for ip_address accepting a CIDR block.
siteNoWebACL ARN, ALB ARN, or instance id/name — bans into the WebACL fronting it (alternative to config_name).
actionNo'ban' to block, 'unban' to remove a block.ban
regionNoAWS region override for the site path.
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.
ip_addressNoAn IPv4/IPv6 address or CIDR to ban/unban.
config_nameNoName of the IP-ban config (see ip_ban_list_configs).
ip_addressesNoBulk list of IPs/CIDRs to ban/unban.

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the tool mutates live traffic rules, that it returns an applied/failed split, and that user confirmation is advised. It stops short of stating required permissions or whether existing rules are overwritten.

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?

Three sentences, each doing work, with the accepted-input modes front-loaded and the confirmation warning placed last where it is most salient. Dense but not padded.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the target resolution, the bulk/single duality, and the return shape (applied/failed). Only permission requirements and reversibility of an unban are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that cidr is an alias, that 'site' resolves the WebACL actually fronting the box, and that config_name and site are alternative paths. That relationship logic is not obvious from the field list alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb pair (ban/unban) and resource (IPs/CIDRs) plus the three targeting mechanisms (named config, site's WebACL, bulk list). It is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'block_ip', which appears to cover overlapping ground.

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 explains the input modes (single ip_address, bulk ip_addresses[], or a resolving 'site') and warns 'confirm with the user first', which implies the mutation context. However, it never states when to pick this over 'block_ip' or 'waf_rate_rule_set', so sibling routing is left to inference.

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