Skip to main content
Glama

Feodotracker

by io.github.pipeworx-io

List

list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current C&C blocklist (optional malware-family / status filter).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo1-5000 (default 500)
familyNoe.g. "Dridex", "Emotet", "Qakbot", "TrickBot"
statusNoe.g. "online", "offline"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesTotal number of entries in the blocklist
matchesYesNumber of entries matching the filter criteria
resultsYesFiltered blocklist entries up to the limit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "limit": 100
-  },
-  {
-    "family": "Emotet",
-    "limit": 500,
-    "status": "online"
-  },
-  {
-    "family": "Dridex",
-    "limit": 100
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 100
+  },
+  {
+    "family": "Emotet",
+    "limit": 100
+  },
+  {
+    "family": "Dridex",
+    "limit": 100
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "family": "Emotet",
-    "limit": 500,
-    "status": "online"
-  },
-  {
-    "family": "Dridex",
-    "limit": 100
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 100
+  },
+  {
+    "family": "Emotet",
+    "limit": 500,
+    "status": "online"
+  },
+  {
+    "family": "Dridex",
+    "limit": 100
+  }
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "family": "Emotet",
+    "limit": 500,
+    "status": "online"
+  },
+  {
+    "family": "Dridex",
+    "limit": 100
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "matches": {
+      "description": "Number of entries matching the filter criteria",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Filtered blocklist entries up to the limit",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "as_name": {
+            "description": "Autonomous System name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "as_number": {
+            "description": "Autonomous System number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "country": {
+            "description": "Country code or name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "first_seen": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of first observation",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "hostname": {
+            "description": "Associated hostname",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "ip_address": {
+            "description": "IP address",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "last_online": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of last online status",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "malware": {
+            "description": "Associated malware family name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "port": {
+            "description": "Port number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Status (e.g. online, offline)",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "ip_address"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total number of entries in the blocklist",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "matches",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current' aspect and the optional filter but does not explain additional context like response size limits or pagination. Since annotations provide the core safety profile, the description's limited extra context yields a mid-range score.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the purpose and key optional filtering. Front-loaded and efficient with no redundancy.

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?

Given that the output schema exists, the return format doesn't need explanation. The tool is a simple list with optional filters, and the annotations cover safety. The description is adequate for what the tool does, though it might mention the default limit (already in schema) or hint that it only shows current blocklist items. It is complete for a read-only list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and each parameter (limit, family, status) includes descriptions and examples. The description itself doesn't add much beyond referencing the family/status filter concept, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter semantics.

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 lists the current C&C blocklist with an optional filter by malware family or status. This is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('C&C blocklist'), and the mention of the optional filter distinguishes it from simple list tools. It is also distinct from siblings like 'recent' or 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the exact data domain.

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?

The description implies usage when you need to view the blocklist, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The examples in the schema help show usage patterns, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Feodotracker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources