Security Recipes

Recipes Agentic Soc Detection Pack

recipes_agentic_soc_detection_pack

Return SIEM-ready detections for agentic AI and MCP telemetry.

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": "recipes_agentic_soc_detection_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	No
`decision`	No
`severity`	No
`event_class`	No
`workflow_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-style generation of detections, but discloses nothing about filtering behavior, whether output is deterministic, size, or any auth/rate constraints. Only marginal value beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with five undocumented parameters and a large sibling surface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required. However, with five undocumented params, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Five parameters (rule_id, decision, severity, event_class, workflow_id) with 0% schema coverage and no descriptions. The description never explains what these control or whether they filter the returned detections, so the schema-side gap is left uncompensated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: "Return SIEM-ready detections for agentic AI and MCP telemetry." An agent can tell this is a detection-content pack, distinct from siblings like threat_radar or telemetry_contract. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting a sibling, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Against a dense pack of ~70 sibling "recipes_*" tools (incident_response_pack, threat_radar, telemetry_contract), the agent gets no signal for choosing this one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Security Recipes tools Inspect

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.