Retrieve all email messages associated with a specific threat case using its threat ID. Returns message IDs and summary data to investigate security incidents.
List messages contained within a specific threat case. Returns message IDs and summary data for all emails associated with the threat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threatId | Yes | The threat ID (UUID) to list messages for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5v1.2.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the return content (message IDs and summary data) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions required, or limits/pagination. This is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and free of unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (message IDs and summary data). It does not describe potential pagination or sorting, but for such a simple list operation, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the threatId parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List messages') and the resource ('within a specific threat case'). It distinguishes from siblings like abnormal_messages_get (singular message) and abnormal_threats_list (list threats) by specifying the message listing scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as abnormal_messages_get or abnormal_threats_list. The description implies it is for listing all messages associated with a threat, but it does not clarify scenarios where a single message fetch would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.