Query the OWASP Agentic Top 10 threat catalog (ASI01-ASI10). Returns threats, detection hints, mitigations, and mapped detection rule IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Specific threat ID, e.g. ASI04 | |
| category | No | Filter by category, e.g. 'prompt injection', 'supply chain' | |
| severity | No | Filter: critical, high, medium |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the return types (threats, detection hints, etc.) which is good, but does not mention idempotency, read-only nature, rate limits, or any required authentication. For a query tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and output details with zero wasted words. It is well 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?
Given no output schema and a simple query tool, the description adequately explains what is returned (threats, detection hints, mitigations, rule IDs). However, it could mention if results are paginated or if there is a limit on returns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter (id, category, severity) with clear definitions. The description adds no additional context beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 queries the OWASP Agentic Top 10 threat catalog (ASI01-ASI10) and specifies the type of information returned (threats, detection hints, mitigations, detection rule IDs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_search or mcp_supply_chain_iocs.
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 implies use for OWASP Agentic threat queries but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it could contrast with general vulnerability searches.
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.
Tools cover very diverse domains (weather, FDA, legal, crypto, etc.), so cross-domain confusion is low. However, within domains there is notable overlap: multiple food recall tools (food_recall_check, food_safety), multiple weather tools (weather_current_global, weather_forecast_grid, weather_alerts, weather_bias), and several Polymarket-related tools. This can cause agent misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (search_arxiv, scrape, validate_agent_manifest), others use noun phrases (smart_money, space_weather, tide_data), and some are long descriptive phrases (cross_platform_arb_scan, polymarket_event_scan). No single pattern is followed, making predictions difficult.
95 tools is excessively high for any coherent purpose. The server appears to be a random aggregation of APIs with no clear scope. Such a large catalog overwhelms agents and dilutes utility; most tools could be split into specialized servers.
Although many domains are touched, each is covered only shallowly. For example, weather lacks historical data, legal lacks case details beyond court opinions, and financial lacks stock prices. There are obvious gaps like no user authentication or data persistence. The tool set feels like a collection of endpoints rather than a cohesive service.