Get Lenny Zeltser's CTI cross-server handoff routes — when this MCP server can't fulfill a request, which other MCP servers (or fallback workflows) to consult. Surfaces a compact subset of cti_load_context. This server never requests your campaign or threat-intel notes and instructs your AI to keep them local—templates and guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it never requests campaign/threat-intel notes and instructs keeping data local, which is valuable context for an AI. It also positions itself as a compact subset, indicating data scope.
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 well-structured sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional privacy/behavioral detail earns its place without bloat.
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?
Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description is complete for the tool's simplicity. It covers purpose, usage conditions, and critical behavioral transparency, making it fully self-contained for an AI to decide when and how to invoke it.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given no parameters exist.
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 tool's function: retrieving cross-server handoff routes for CTI when this server can't fulfill a request. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's CTI-specific and a compact subset of 'cti_load_context'.
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 explicitly defines when to use this tool: when the MCP server cannot fulfill a request, to find alternative servers or workflows. It also hints at using 'cti_load_context' for the full context, providing a clear alternative.
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.
