Whisper

walk

whisper_walk

Read-only

Walk the graph from an indicator across its relationships. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"walk","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

A4/5.0

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 an important behavioral/auth fact—'Answers without an API key'—and demonstrates the minimal call shape. No contradiction with the annotations.

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: main purpose first, key auth characteristic second, invocation example third. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant wording is present.

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 documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, auth, and call shape. It does not detail graph depth or relationship types, but those details are less critical given the output schema and simple interface.

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%: the input schema already documents that input is a domain, IP, ASN, or file hash. The description's example call and example.com add no new semantic constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('walk') and resource ('the graph from an indicator across its relationships'), so an agent can tell it performs relationship traversal. It does not explicitly distinguish it from graph-adjacent siblings, 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The graph-walk context and the 'Answers without an API key' note give clear when-to-use context, and the JSON example shows exactly how to invoke it. It names no alternative/exclusion, so it falls short of explicit guideline quality.

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.