get_data_freshnessCheck the freshness and sync status of all data sources. Returns last sync time, data age in hours, record counts, and health status (current/stale/critical) for each source: NVD, CISA KEV, EPSS, ExploitDB. Use this to verify data is up-to-date before making security assessments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the return payload (timestamps, age, counts, health status categories) and the exact data sources covered. It doesn't describe edge cases like partial failures, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first is a dense summary of functionality and outputs, the second is a clear usage recommendation. No filler or repetition of the name/title, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields and data sources, making the tool's behavior predictable. Given the zero-parameter input and simple read-only nature, the description covers all necessary context without requiring more detail.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, and since the schema is empty, there is no additional documentation needed. The description adds value by explaining what data the tool actually provides.
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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'freshness and sync status of all data sources', and it lists specific return fields (last sync time, data age, record counts, health status) and the covered sources (NVD, CISA KEV, EPSS, ExploitDB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual sources or specific details.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to verify data is up-to-date before making security assessments.' While it doesn't name alternative tools or when NOT to use it, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs overlap: get_current_step vs get_progress, search_cve vs search_by_product, and describe_capabilities vs get_my_capabilities. The descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, but agents could still occasionally misselect.
Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*, start_*, etc.). Minor deviations like 'diff' and 'search' (single-word) and 'batch_search' (compound modifier) are predictable and don't disrupt the overall consistency.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The broad scope (legal intelligence, CVE data, full workflow engine) justifies many tools, but some are internal or niche (probe_corpus, recommend_subagents) and could be hidden. It's borderline between well-scoped and excessive.
The legal and CVE domains are well-covered: search, provision lookup, validation, diff, coverage, and detailed CVE enrichment. Workflow management is end-to-end. However, get_regulatory_deadlines is referenced by get_regulatory_intelligence_status but not exposed in the toolset, leaving a notable gap.