Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chainsaw MCP Server

Chainsaw MCP Server

by MadameFabulous
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Chainsaw: read a rule

chainsaw_get_rule
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a single rule's YAML and parsed summary, or list a rule directory, by kind and path to inspect detection logic.

Instructions

Read one rule's YAML and parsed summary, or list a rule directory.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "chainsaw_get_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYeschainsaw, sigma or custom.
pathYesRule path relative to that kind's root, e.g. rules/windows/process_creation/proc_creation_win_lsass_dump.yml or evtx/credential_access. Directories return their children.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that a directory path returns its children, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about error behavior for missing rules or output shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence covering both modes with zero waste. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only tool with no output schema and only two well-documented params, the description adequately signals both return modes (rule YAML + parsed summary, or child listing). It is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters carry examples and the kind enum-like values (chainsaw, sigma, custom), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a rule's YAML and parsed summary), plus a secondary listing mode. It is distinguishable from chainsaw_rule_stats and chainsaw_search_rules by implying single-rule retrieval, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The dual mode (read one rule vs. list a directory) is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., use search_rules instead, or list_evidence for other artifacts). An agent must infer when this beats its siblings.

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