Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PatrowlIntelMCP

PatrowlIntelMCP

Official
by Patrowl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_trending_attacks

List trending attacks from the Patrowl feed, sorted by most recent. Filter by date and minimum severity to isolate high and critical threats.

Instructions

List trending attacks / actively-discussed threats from the Patrowl feed, most recent first. Use min_severity=3 to focus on High and Critical.

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": "list_trending_attacks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results, 1-100.
sinceNoISO date lower bound on publish date, e.g. 2026-06-01.
min_severityNoMinimum severity: 0=Info, 1=Low, 2=Medium, 3=High, 4=Critical.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and suggests parameter usage, but lacks explicit mention of read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or what 'trending' means. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, ordering, and a key parameter hint. It is sufficient for a list tool, though it could mention return type for completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds value by providing an example usage (min_severity=3) beyond what the schema offers, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'trending attacks from the Patrowl feed', and the ordering 'most recent first'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_cve, search_cves) which are about CVEs.

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 a specific usage hint for min_severity=3 to focus on High and Critical. Does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context implies it's for trending attacks while siblings are for CVEs.

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