Return PROMPT IOC cache statistics: size, hit rate, latency, refresh status.
Use this to verify the cache is warmed and healthy before relying on
check_prompt() for real-time detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate for a stats tool, but it does not explicitly state read-only, side-effect-free behavior, or any authentication/permission requirements. The mention of 'refresh status' describes cache state, not tool behavior, adding only marginal transparency.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides actionable usage context. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple, parameterless stats tool, the description is nearly complete with purpose, metrics, and usage context. It lacks an explicit return-value format (e.g., whether stats are integers, floats, or nested objects), but the named fields offer sufficient grounding. The sibling relationship to check_prompt adds workflow context.
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, and the schema is empty, which makes parameter explanation unnecessary. The description instead enumerates the statistics returned, which is useful context even though it is not strictly parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.
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 opens with a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'PROMPT IOC cache statistics' with concrete metrics: size, hit rate, latency, refresh status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like get_stats and registry_monitor_stats by focusing on the prompt cache specifically.
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 gives explicit context: 'Use this to verify the cache is warmed and healthy before relying on check_prompt() for real-time detection.' It names a dependent tool (check_prompt) and establishes a clear sequencing relationship, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.
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.