List all active stateful push subscriptions on this MCP server instance.
Returns metadata for each subscription (not the buffered IOCs themselves). Useful for inspecting what agents are currently subscribed and what filters they have configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it returns metadata, not the buffered IOCs themselves, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (though listing is likely read-only), performance considerations, or pagination. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not excessive. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).
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 concise and to the point: first sentence states the purpose clearly, second sentence clarifies output content and usage context. No wasted words. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.
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?
For a tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It explains what is returned (metadata) and what is not (buffered IOCs), which contextualizes the output. It could mention if there are any filters or ordering, but given no params, it's likely a simple listing tool. It doesn't need 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 no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns (metadata) and what it doesn't (the actual buffered IOCs), which helps interpret the output schema context. For a zero-parameter tool, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'List all active stateful push subscriptions on this MCP server instance.' It specifies the resource (subscriptions), scope (active stateful push), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it returns metadata, not the buffered IOCs themselves. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that differentiates it from related tools like subscribe_threats and unsubscribe.
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 a usage context: 'Useful for inspecting what agents are currently subscribed and what filters they have configured.' This indicates when to use it but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Compared to siblings, it's clear this is for introspection rather than action, but the absence of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.
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 there is notable overlap among threat-fetching methods: get_new_threats, poll_since, and drain_subscription all retrieve new threats via different mechanisms, and several stats tools (get_stats, freshness_limits, prompt_cache_stats) serve similar informational roles. Overall, descriptions help disambiguate, but a few tools could be confused.
The naming is predominantly snake_case, but mixes verb_noun (check_freshness, submit_ioc), noun phrases (family_threats, freshness_limits), and even a question (is_ioc_revoked). 'unsubscribe' breaks the pattern of other subscription tools (subscribe_threats, drain_subscription). This inconsistency is noticeable though still readable.
30 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical 15-tool comfort zone. However, the server covers a broad domain—IOC submission, retrieval, subscriptions, freshness tracking, prompt/skill scanning, and registry monitoring—so the large number is somewhat justified by the scope.
The tool surface covers the full threat intelligence lifecycle: submit (submit_ioc, submit_batch), query (lookup_ioc, search_by_type, recent_threats, family_threats), subscribe (subscribe_threats, drain_subscription), update (report_detection, vote_false_positive), and revoke (revoke_ioc). Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of a direct delete or update signature tool and no get-by-signature-id endpoint, but these are manageable for agents.
