Skip to main content
Glama
CoveoSec
by CoveoSec

indicators_insert_jsons

Insert IOCs from external threat intelligence as JSON objects into Cortex XSIAM to enrich security monitoring with hash, IP, domain, and filename indicators.

Instructions

Insert Simple Indicators, JSON

Upload IOCs as JSON objects that you retrieved from external threat intelligence sources.

Note: Cortex XSIAM does not scan historic data, rather only new incoming data.

Required license: Cortex XSIAM Premium or Cortex XSIAM Enterprise or Cortex XSIAM Enterprise Plus

[POST /public_api/v1/indicators/insert_jsons] · Rules

Example request body:

{
  "request_data": [
    {
      "indicator": "<hash_value>",
      "type": "HASH",
      "comment": "test",
      "reputation": "GOOD",
      "reliability": "D",
      "vendors": [
        {
          "vendor_name": "V1",
          "reliability": "A",
          "reputation": "GOOD"
        },
        {
          "vendor_name": "V2",
          "reliability": "A",
          "reputation": "SUSPICIOUS"
        }
      ],
      "class": "Malware"
    }
  ],
  "validate": true
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validateNoWhether to return an array of errors in the case of an unsuccessful update indicator API request.
request_dataYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key limitation (historic data not scanned) and a licensing requirement, which is valuable. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects beyond the insert operation. The example body provides some structural clarity but not full behavioral transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately sized, with a clear opening line, a behavioral note, licensing info, and a formatted JSON example. The structure is logical and the code block aids readability. No redundant sentences, though the licensing info could arguably be moved to annotations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has nested objects and multiple parameters, but the schema covers many details. The description adds an example and a key behavioral note. However, the absence of output schema means the description should explain return values and error handling, which it does not. The missing 'severity' in the example also leaves a gap. Overall, it's moderately complete but not fully.

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 descriptions for many fields but not all (e.g., 'class' has none), and schema coverage is only 50%. The description compensates partially by providing a complete example request body showing nested structure for 'request_data' and 'validate'. However, the example omits 'severity' which is required by the schema, potentially causing confusion. The description does not add direct parameter-level explanations beyond the example.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inserting IOCs as JSON objects retrieved from external threat intelligence sources. It uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('Simple Indicators, JSON'), and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like indicators_insert_csv. The phrase 'Simple Indicators' is slightly ambiguous but overall the purpose is clear.

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 description provides context on when to use the tool: when you have IOCs in JSON format from external sources. It also includes a caveat about XSIAM only scanning new data, which is useful for expectations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like indicators_insert_csv, but the JSON-vs-CSV distinction is implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CoveoSec/xsiam-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server