Chainsaw MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Chainsaw: rule statistics

chainsaw_rule_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count installed Chainsaw, Sigma, and custom detection rules by level and status, and list available Sigma collections to include in threat-hunting hunts.

Instructions

Count installed Chainsaw, Sigma and custom rules by level and status, plus mappings.

Also lists the Sigma collections present; pass those names to chainsaw_hunt's sigma_collections when you want threat-hunting or emerging-threat rules included.

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": "chainsaw_rule_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the output content (level/status counts, mappings) and that Sigma collection names are listed for reuse in chainsaw_hunt, which is a behavioral fact not in the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core function front-loaded and the follow-up workflow note second. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool produces and how the result feeds chainsaw_hunt; only a brief note on output shape or cost would make it exhaustive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: counting installed Chainsaw, Sigma and custom rules broken down by level and status, plus mappings. This is clearly distinct from siblings like chainsaw_search_rules, chainsaw_get_rule, or chainsaw_lint_rules, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit downstream guidance: the listed Sigma collection names should be passed to chainsaw_hunt's sigma_collections for threat-hunting. It gives clear context for what to do with the result, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling rule-inspection tools such as chainsaw_search_rules.

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