List loaded ATR and GuardBee detection rules, optionally filtered by lane, source, or category, to inspect active threat detections.
List loaded ATR + GuardBee detection rules (optionally filter by category or source).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, whether results are paginated, or how the lane parameter (present in the schema) affects behavior. It also omits the lane filter entirely, which is a meaningful gap given three schema parameters and no annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the core action and optional filters without filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used the same space to mention the lane filter instead of leaving it out.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three enum parameters, the description is too thin. It omits the lane filter and says nothing about the return shape or read-only nature, which an agent needs for confident invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions filtering by 'category or source' and completely omits the lane parameter and its enforce/alert/hunt semantics. The enums are somewhat self-explanatory in the schema, but the description does not add any meaning beyond naming two of three filters.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('loaded ATR + GuardBee detection rules'), which clearly distinguishes it from the evaluate/explain siblings in the threat_rules family. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from rule_stats, which likely also reports on rules, but the listing purpose is clear enough.
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?
It states the tool lists loaded rules and that filtering by category or source is optional, which implies a discovery/inventory use case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus rule_stats, evaluate_event, or the many list_patterns tools in sibling scanners, leaving the selection logic implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.