Skip to main content
Glama

assess

whisper_assess
Read-only

Assess the risk/policy posture of one or more indicators. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"assess","input":"example.com"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe indicator to look up: a domain, an IP address, an ASN or a file hash. The example passes example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesThe answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
columnsYesThe column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
statisticsNoWhat the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "A tabular graph answer: the column names, the rows keyed by them, and the cost.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "columns": {
      +      "description": "The column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.",
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "rows": {
      +      "description": "The answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.",
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "statistics": {
      +      "description": "What the query cost.",
      +      "properties": {
      +        "executionTimeMs": {
      +          "description": "Milliseconds the graph spent answering.",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "rowCount": {
      +          "description": "How many rows came back.",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "rowCount"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "columns",
      +    "rows"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states no API key is required and mentions that multiple indicators can be assessed, though the exact format for multiple indicators is not specified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful authentication note and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the ambiguous 'one or more indicators' phrasing, which is not reconciled with the singular input schema.

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 schema already documents the input parameter well. The description adds the 'one or more indicators' nuance and an example call, but it does not clarify how multiple indicators should be encoded in the single string parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Assess') and a specific resource ('risk/policy posture of one or more indicators'), which clearly differentiates it from generic lookup siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is concrete enough to avoid confusion.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use this when you need risk/policy assessment of an indicator. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better fit for other indicator lookups.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.