Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.AIops-tools/symantec-clouddlp-aiops

io.github.AIops-tools/symantec-clouddlp-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

clouddlp_reusable_patterns

Read-only

Lists reusable DLP patterns from Symantec CloudSOC so you can find and reuse existing detection patterns for data-loss prevention.

Instructions

[READ] List reusable DLP patterns.

Tool call template

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": "clouddlp_reusable_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the "[READ]" tag merely repeats that structured fact rather than adding context. Nothing is said about result volume, pagination, filtering behavior, or what a reuse pattern contains, so the description contributes almost nothing beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded and free of filler, but at one short clause it is under-specified rather than economical for a tool carrying an undocumented query parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and clean annotations, the description should at minimum explain what a query matches and what the listing returns. Neither is present, so an agent knows the tool exists but little about how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter "query" has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it, leaving its matching semantics, format, and whether an empty string means list-all entirely undocumented. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("reusable DLP patterns") and tags the operation as [READ]. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling clouddlp_reusable_pattern by listing rather than fetching one, but never states that distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over clouddlp_reusable_pattern or any other sibling, and no mention of prerequisites or query usage. The agent must infer the list-vs-get distinction from the tool names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools