aggressiveFull aggressive blocklist (includes older + lower-confidence IPs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ips | Yes | List of IPv4 addresses from aggressive feed | |
| total | Yes | Total number of IPs in the aggressive blocklist | |
| source | Yes | Source identifier (always 'aggressive') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "ips": {
+ "description": "List of IPv4 addresses from aggressive feed",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "IPv4 address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "description": "Source identifier (always 'aggressive')",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total number of IPs in the aggressive blocklist",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "source",
+ "total",
+ "ips"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that the blocklist includes older and lower-confidence IPs, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could hint at the output format, but the output schema likely handles that.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but given zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 specifies the tool returns the full aggressive blocklist including older and lower-confidence IPs, which clearly identifies the resource. However, it lacks a verb like 'returns' or 'gets', making it slightly less direct. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_ip' which checks single IPs, but not explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_ip', 'list', or 'recent_alerts'. The description does not provide context for when the aggressive blocklist is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple near-duplicate clusters exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to the stable router right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,767-tool catalog, and six polymarket_* tools overlap heavily in surfacing bet/edge opportunities. The blocklist tools (list, recent, aggressive) are only weakly distinguished by time window and confidence, requiring careful reading to select correctly.
Naming mixes several incompatible conventions: bare adjectives/nouns for blocklist tools (aggressive, list, recent), brand-prefixed compounds (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_feedback), verb_noun pairs (check_ip, resolve_entity), and noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research). The server name 'Feodotracker' appears nowhere in the tool names, and the blocklist cluster uses a completely different style from the data cluster.
At 35 tools, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', but the deeper issue is that roughly 31 tools serve a general data-lookup/prediction-market platform while only 4 serve the server's stated Feodotracker blocklist purpose. The count reflects two unrelated products merged into one MCP server rather than a well-scoped tool surface.
For the named Feodotracker domain, the surface is thin: list/check/recent cover basic blocklist access but miss historical lookups, per-entry threat intel, or export formats that a botnet tracker would need. For the data-lookup domain the 31-tool suite is impressively complete, but the two domains don't form a coherent whole—each leaves the other's lifecycle half-served.