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 | |||
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.
Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.
Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.
With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.
For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.
