List detected attack tools — (protocol, payload, path) tuples sent by 3+ distinct source IPs. Aggregate metadata only; never lists member actors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| since_ms | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only aggregate metadata is returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or authentication requirements.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Critical information front-loaded: what it lists and constraint on source IP count. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output structure (aggregate metadata) but omits parameter descriptions and output format details. Adequate for a simple tool but could be improved.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like 'limit', 'protocol', and 'since_ms' have self-explanatory names but the description does not elaborate on their role or valid values.
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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (attack tools), and defines the scope: (protocol, payload, path) tuples sent by 3+ distinct source IPs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scry_tool which likely handles individual tools.
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?
The description notes what the tool does and does not do ('never lists member actors'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Implied context is present but not explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a unique resource or operation: single IP lookup, bulk IP lookup, ASN roll-up, country roll-up, campaign detail, campaign list, recent observations, stats, timeseries, tool detail, tool list, and top sources. There is no overlap or ambiguity, and descriptions explicitly state when each tool should or should not be used.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'scry_' plus a descriptive noun (e.g., scry_asn, scry_check, scry_timeseries). The naming is uniform, lowercase with underscores, and logically reflects the tool's purpose.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a threat intelligence server. It provides sufficient granularity without being overly large or sparse, covering core functionality without redundancy.
The tool surface covers key operations for IP triage, campaign analysis, statistical overviews, time-series trends, and tool detection. There are no obvious gaps; all common use cases for network observation and threat intelligence are addressed.