Skip to main content
Glama

report_incident

Log security incidents like policy violations or suspicious activity for investigation and tracking within the PolicyGuard system.

Instructions

Report a security incident for investigation and tracking.

Use this tool to log security incidents such as policy violations, suspicious agent behavior, or potential security threats.

Args: incident_type: Type of incident: - "policy_violation": Agent violated a security policy - "suspicious_activity": Unusual or potentially malicious behavior - "unauthorized_access": Attempt to access restricted resources - "rate_limit_exceeded": Agent exceeded rate limits - "data_exfiltration": Potential data leak detected - "configuration_error": Security misconfiguration detected - "other": Other security concern severity: Incident severity: - "low": Minor issue, no immediate action needed - "medium": Notable issue, should be reviewed - "high": Serious issue, needs prompt attention - "critical": Emergency, immediate action required description: Detailed description of the incident agent_id: ID of the agent involved (if applicable) evidence: JSON object with supporting evidence/data recommended_action: Suggested remediation steps

Returns: JSON string with: - incident_id: Unique incident identifier - success: Whether the incident was logged - message: Status message - agent_suspended: Whether the agent was auto-suspended

Example: report_incident( incident_type="suspicious_activity", severity="high", description="Agent attempted to access 50 databases in 1 minute", agent_id="rogue-agent-01", evidence='{"databases_accessed": 50, "time_window": "60s"}', recommended_action="Review agent permissions and suspend if needed" )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incident_typeYes
severityYes
descriptionYes
agent_idNo
evidenceNo{}
recommended_actionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it logs incidents for investigation and tracking, and the 'Returns' section details outcomes like incident ID generation, success status, and potential agent suspension. This covers key behavioral aspects without contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, arguments, returns, and an example. It is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying parameter options and output format.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, all parameters in detail, return values, and includes a practical example. The output schema is referenced in the 'Returns' section, making the description comprehensive for agent use.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by providing detailed semantics for all 6 parameters, including enumerated values for 'incident_type' and 'severity', and clear explanations for others like 'description' and 'evidence'. This adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report a security incident for investigation and tracking.' It specifies the verb ('report') and resource ('security incident'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_policy' or 'get_audit_log' by focusing on incident reporting rather than policy management or log retrieval.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to log security incidents such as policy violations, suspicious agent behavior, or potential security threats.' It lists specific incident types, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PrateekKumar1709/policyguard'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server