Skip to main content
Glama

origins

whisper_origins
Read-only

Trace the origins/provenance of an indicator. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"origins","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 cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the meaningful extra that no API key is required—an authentication trait not visible in annotations or schema. It does not go into data sources or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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: purpose first, then the no-API-key note, then a concrete example call. Each sentence earns its place, and the example illustrates the skill/input structure not fully captured in the schema.

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-string-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description plus schema provide enough to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor completeness issue.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already documents that input can be a domain, IP, ASN, or file hash. The description only restates 'indicator' and provides an example call, adding minimal semantic value 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 states a specific action ('Trace') and object ('origins/provenance of an indicator'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not contrast itself with sibling tools like whisper_history or whisper_variants, which keeps it from a 5.

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 provenance or origin of an indicator is needed. It also gives a practical condition ('Answers without an API key'), but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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.