Skip to main content
Glama

variants

whisper_variants
Read-only

Enumerate variants/permutations of an indicator. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"variants","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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the auth-relevant detail that it 'Answers without an API key,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what kinds of variants are produced or any rate-limit/scope constraints, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example call, with the core action front-loaded. There is no filler, and the example demonstrates the exact call shape, making the definition efficient and easy to parse.

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, read-only tool with a provided output schema, the description covers the purpose, auth requirement, and an example call. It omits explicit alternative-selection guidance, but that falls under usage guidelines and does not undermine completeness for a straightforward tool.

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 input parameter is already fully documented as a domain, IP, ASN, or file hash. The description adds the notion of enumerating variants but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Enumerate' with a clear resource 'variants/permutations of an indicator,' making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like whisper_identify or whisper_lookupTorRelay. The title 'variants' is expanded into an actionable statement.

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 gives context ('Answers without an API key') that implies a no-credential usage scenario, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The example call provides a template but no routing guidance.

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.