Whisper

identify

whisper_identify

Read-only

Identify an indicator (domain, IP, hash, …) against the graph. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"identify","input":"example.com"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The indicator to look up: a domain, an IP address, an ASN or a file hash. The example passes example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes	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.
`columns`	Yes	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.
`statistics`	No	What the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: 'Answers without an API key', which is a notable access requirement. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but the output schema may cover that.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences and a code example. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides a callable example. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what input to provide, that no API key is needed, and gives an example. It doesn't mention error conditions or alternative routing, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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% – the parameter is fully described ('domain, IP, ASN, or file hash') and includes an example. The tool description's example call adds a concrete usage pattern, but since the schema already explains the parameter well, the description adds little beyond that.

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 verb ('Identify') and resource ('an indicator against the graph'), with clear scope (domain, IP, hash, etc.). It is distinct from siblings like whisper_lookupTlsFingerprint or whisper_rdap in that it is a general-purpose lookup, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives to aid differentiation.

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?

The description provides an example call but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., whisper_verify, whisper_lookupTlsFingerprint). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when an alternative is more appropriate.

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

All Whisper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.