mcp-server-wazuh

Search Findings

search_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Wazuh 5 findings in the wazuh-findings-v5 data stream by OpenSearch query string, optional agent ID, and pagination to review rule matches.

Instructions

Search rule matches in the wazuh-findings-v5 data stream. Wazuh 5 calls these findings, not alerts.

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": "search_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, from 1 to 100
`query`	No	OpenSearch query_string. Empty matches all findings.
`offset`	No	Result offset, from 0 to 10000
`agent_id`	No	Optional agent id filter

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat the safety profile. It adds the concrete backing index (wazuh-findings-v5), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination cost, result ordering, or total-hit behavior, and an output schema also exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the target. Nothing is padded, though the terminology note could be folded into the first sentence without loss.

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?

The input schema is fully documented, an output schema exists for return values, and annotations cover safety. Adding the data stream name and the findings/alerts terminology is the missing piece an agent would otherwise get wrong, and that is exactly what the description supplies.

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 description coverage is 100%: limit, query, offset, and agent_id are all documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (search) and resource (rule matches in the wazuh-findings-v5 data stream), and the second sentence disambiguates Wazuh 5 terminology ('findings, not alerts'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for different needs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool searches findings, so use it when you want rule matches. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing against search_events, search_vulnerabilities, or search_mitre, all of which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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

Deploy Server