website-search

cti_review_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing CTI report or brief. Surfaces per-theme review criteria (framework, confidence, attribution, defense, distribution, etc.), cross-cutting criteria, the six anti-patterns to watch for, and focus-driven writing analysis. 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
`focus`	No	Focus areas: completeness, clarity, tone, structure, attribution, confidence, or all.
`sections`	No	Narrow to specific report sections; 'all' includes every section.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

In addition to the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: '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.' This adds privacy/context beyond what annotations already convey and clarifies the tool's non-collector nature.

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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the privacy behavior succinctly stated in the second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the main deliverables (per-theme criteria, cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, focus-driven analysis) plus privacy behavior. It lacks an explicit note on return format, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is adequate without being exhaustive.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both 'focus' and 'sections' parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'focus-driven writing analysis' adds minimal extra meaning, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing CTI report or brief.' It clearly distinguishes this CTI-specific tool from sibling report-review tools (e.g., assessment_review_report, ir_review_report) by emphasizing the CTI domain and named expert.

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 implies the tool is for use when reviewing existing CTI reports and provides the behavioral note that it never requests campaign notes, guiding the agent on safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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?