Skip to main content
Glama

Threatfox

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds behavioral details: key-value pair storage, scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous users (24 hours). 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema) and the annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description thoroughly covers use cases, scoping, and persistence. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., key naming examples) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It specifies the verb (save) and resource (data), and is easily distinguished from siblings like recall and forget.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' It also mentions when to pair with recall and forget, indicating alternatives.

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

All Threatfox 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants, 'deep_research', and various search tools (search_hash, search_ioc, search_malware, search_within). The similarities in descriptions confuse an agent's ability to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use underscores (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some use hyphenated or compound names (generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback), and verbs are inconsistent (search vs. ask vs. validate). No clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server feels over-scoped, integrating many domains (financials, drugs, prediction markets, threat intel) into a single surface. This leads to redundancy and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data lookups and threat intel operations, but there are noticeable gaps: few update/delete/management tools (only subscribe/unsubscribe/forget) and no clear lifecycle for many resource types. Some domains appear incomplete.

Resources