website-search

cti_get_guidelines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert CTI writing guidelines. Topics include tone, words, structure, executive_summary, voice, articles, summary, brief (one-page brief section guidance), handoffs (cross-server routing), methodology (the three subsections), fields (per-field guidance), and CTI-specific topics: attribution (full Six Signals prose), confidence (ICD-203 ladder), pyramid_of_pain, six_signals (signals table only), and anti_patterns. The general writing topics (tone/words/structure/executive_summary) now defer to get_security_writing_guidelines for the canonical Five Elements rules; CTI-specific content lives in the other topics. Pair the 'fields' topic with field_id for single-field guidance. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Which topic to surface. Defaults to a 'summary' overview when omitted.
`field_id`	No	Only meaningful with topic='fields'. When supplied, returns guidance for the named field id. When omitted under topic='fields', returns a directory of available field ids.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses a privacy stance: 'This server never requests your campaign or threat-intel notes and instructs your AI to keep them local.' It also explains content-scoping behavior (some topics defer to another tool), which is useful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose. The enumeration of topics is dense and could be structured with bullets, but every sentence carries useful information. The privacy note is a slight tangent but valuable.

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 17 enum topics, 2 parameters, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all topic meanings, the deferral behavior, parameter pairing, and a privacy guarantee. This fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning to the enum values (e.g., 'attribution (full Six Signals prose)', 'confidence (ICD-203 ladder)', 'pyramid_of_pain') and clarifies the relationship between topic and field_id. It also states that 'field_id' is 'Only meaningful with topic='fields'', reinforcing the schema.

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 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert CTI writing guidelines' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly deferring general writing topics to `get_security_writing_guidelines` and enumerating CTI-specific topics.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'The general writing topics ... now defer to `get_security_writing_guidelines` for the canonical Five Elements rules; CTI-specific content lives in the other topics.' It also instructs pairing 'fields' with field_id, and notes default behavior when topic omitted.

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

All website-search tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?