Skip to main content
Glama

asset

whisper_asset
Read-only

Resolve an asset and its catalog of attributes. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"asset","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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds a useful auth-relevant detail ('Answers without an API key') plus a hint that the result is a catalog of attributes. It does not go into rate limits, failure behavior, or output format, but for this simple read-only lookup the extra context is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, a behavioral note, and an illustrative example with no repetition or filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, an output schema available, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential context for calling the tool. The example call and API-key note round out the picture; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already lists all accepted indicator types (domain, IP, ASN, file hash). The description only reinforces this with an example, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('an asset and its catalog of attributes'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whisper_identify or whisper_lookupTlsFingerprint, but the asset-attributes framing gives enough distinctiveness.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to resolve an asset and its attribute catalog from an indicator. However, it provides no exclusions or explicit comparisons to sibling tools, and the 'no API key' note is the only additional usage signal.

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.