website-search

cti_get_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's cyber threat intel template. The long report covers Executive Summary, Actor Snapshot, Methodology, Activity Overview, Representative Adversary Techniques, Indicators of Compromise, Defensive Implications, Attribution Analysis, Anticipated Activity, optional Strategic Analysis and Competing Hypotheses, plus About this Report. The one-page brief covers Bottom Line, Quick Facts, Are We in Scope?, Defensive Actions, What We Don't Know, More Information. 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
`template`	No	Which artifact to return: 'report' (12-section long report, default) or 'brief' (one-page executive brief).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. It adds valuable context about privacy (never requesting campaign/note content and keeping it local) and details the template contents, enriching transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it starts with the tool's purpose, then breaks down the report and brief contents, and ends with a privacy note. Each sentence provides useful information, though the section lists could have been slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple template-fetching tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two template types with their sections and includes a privacy behavior note. With no output schema, it could have mentioned the return format, but the content details largely compensate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema provides full coverage of the 'template' parameter with an enum and description. The tool description adds meaning by elaborating on what each enum value ('report' or 'brief') contains, listing the sections covered, which helps the agent choose correctly.

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 the tool gets Lenny Zeltser's cyber threat intel template, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the author and domain, and details the two template variants (report and brief), making it unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the difference between the report and brief templates, providing clear context on what each offers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the many sibling template tools (e.g., cti_get_brief_template) or other domain templates, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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?