Fetch newly documented cyberattacks to monitor ransomware activity and discover victim organizations.
Get recently added cyberattacks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of attacks to return (max 1000) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it does not explain what 'recently' means, how results are ordered, or any pagination or time-frame details. With annotations present, the description provides minimal added transparency.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have included a brief mention of alternatives without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter, an output schema, and favorable annotations, the description is still incomplete for agent selection. It fails to differentiate clearly among the many sibling tools (17 listed) and does not clarify the meaning of 'recently'. An agent could easily choose 'get_all_cyberattacks' without additional context.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema already fully documents its meaning and constraints. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cyberattacks' with the qualifier 'recently added'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_all_cyberattacks', which presumably returns all attacks. However, 'recently' is left vague, so the purpose is clear but could be more precise.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_cyberattacks' or 'get_country_attacks'. Usage is only vaguely implied by the word 'recently', but there is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.