Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tollbooth

by io.github.huwhitememes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

agent_threat_intel

Query the OWASP Agentic Top 10 threat catalog (ASI01-ASI10). Returns threats, detection hints, mitigations, and mapped detection rule IDs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agent_threat_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoSpecific threat ID, e.g. ASI04
categoryNoFilter by category, e.g. 'prompt injection', 'supply chain'
severityNoFilter: critical, high, medium

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All tollbooth toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources