Exports Zero-PII, lure-free Protocol AO-057 blue-team telemetry and detection rules in stix21, sigma, waf, or summary format.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "export_blue_team_detections"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Target export format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuine context beyond structured fields: the export is "Zero-PII" and "lure-free," which tells the agent the payload is sanitized and safe to handle. It does not disclose whether the export is inline content or a written file, whether the call has side effects, or whether any permission is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and format options all appear immediately. Density costs a little clarity because jargon like "Protocol AO-057" and "lure-free" is unexplained, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, single optional-parameter tool this is close to adequate, covering purpose, content guarantees, and formats. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least state the default format and the shape of what comes back (inline data versus a file reference).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single format parameter is a fully documented enum, so the schema already does the work. The description merely repeats the four enum values as prose without explaining what each format yields or what the default is when format is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Exports") and a specific resource ("Protocol AO-057 blue-team telemetry and detection rules"), plus the output formats. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as audit_gateway_payload_defense or get_ao053_graduation_summary, which an agent might plausibly confuse with a telemetry export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says under what circumstances an agent should export versus analyze or audit, nor when to pick one format over another. The format list is a menu, not guidance, so the agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.