threat_levelGet the global SANS ISC InfoCon threat level — the internet-wide "weather report" for malicious activity. Returns one of green/yellow/orange/red with a plain-English meaning. An at-a-glance signal of whether a major internet-scale event is underway. Keyless, no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds return values (green/yellow/orange/red) and confirms 'no arguments', complementing annotations well.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Fully covers purpose, return values, and usage context for a zero-parameter tool with rich annotations. No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and explicitly names the resource 'global SANS ISC InfoCon threat level', clearly distinguishing from siblings which cover different domains.
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?
Description states it's an 'at-a-glance signal of whether a major internet-scale event is underway', implying quick global threat assessment. No explicit exclusions but context is clear.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim all handle factual queries), which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so the confusion is moderate.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities). A few irregular verbs (forget, recall, remember) and diverse prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) lower consistency slightly.
33 tools is high but each serves a distinct purpose within a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, security, memory, etc.). The number feels slightly excessive for a single server, but not extreme.
The tool surface covers many aspects of data retrieval, prediction market analysis, and security checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated WHOIS or CVE lookup), but core workflows are well-supported.