Skip to main content
Glama

AlpineDataWorks Intelligence Server

by com.alpinedataworks

Cyber Threat Activity Index

adw.adw_591
Read-only

Returns a 0-100 active-exploitation pressure index (30-day pace of CISA KEV catalog additions vs the trailing 90-day baseline, weighted for ransomware-linked share) with threat_activity_score, ransomware_linked_share, top_vendors, and recent_additions (10 newest exploited-in-the-wild CVEs). Call when the user asks about vulnerability exploitation surges, KEV additions, ransomware pressure, or which vendors are driving CVE activity, or when timing emergency patch windows or patch-SLA escalation. Updates: daily.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoOptional: return a daily HISTORY series of the last N days (up to 5 years of real archived data) instead of the current snapshot. History requires Gold tier; without it, the current snapshot is returned.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by adding update cadence ('Updates: daily'), the methodology behind the index, and the exact fields returned. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 two information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the return value and key fields before listing use cases. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: main index, ransomware share, top vendors, recent additions (with count and type), plus the calculation basis. It also covers update frequency and the optional history parameter via the schema, making the tool fully understandable.

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%: the single optional 'days' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level guidance, but the schema already handles it, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verb 'Returns' and clearly specifies the resource: a 0-100 active-exploitation pressure index with named output fields. It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools by detailing the exact calculation and content, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit 'Call when' conditions covering several concrete scenarios (exploitation surges, KEV additions, ransomware pressure, vendor-driven CVE activity, patch timing). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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

All AlpineDataWorks Intelligence Server 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

With 318 tools named adw.adw_###, agents cannot tell them apart without reading full descriptions. Multiple tools cover the same domain (e.g., at least three USD strength scores: adw_055, adw_250, adw_580; four supply-chain stress scores: adw_009, adw_019, adw_020, adw_547), making misselection highly likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

The vast majority follow a consistent numeric ID pattern (adw.adw_###), but a small set breaks this with descriptive snake_case names (adw.catalog, adw.sample, adw.county_cancer, etc.). The numeric IDs are predictable but convey no semantic meaning, mixing with the few named tools and creating moderate inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

318 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for an intelligence server; even the largest sophisticated APIs rarely exceed 50. This extreme count suggests poor curation and will overwhelm agents with choice, making efficient tool selection impractical.

Completeness3/5

The server covers an extremely broad range of domains (crypto, macro, supply chain, healthcare, climate, county demographics), and includes discovery tools like adw.catalog and adw.sample. However, the surface is redundant and not systematically complete—many overlapping indices exist while other potentially valuable operations (e.g., raw data export, historical trend queries) are missing, leaving moderate gaps.

Resources