Retrieve threat intelligence by searching IOCs, threat actors, and campaigns. Filter results by type and limit to zero in on relevant indicators.
Query threat intelligence data — IOCs, threat actors, and campaigns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by IOC type: ip_address, domain, file_hash, url, email | |
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| query | Yes | Search term (IP, domain, hash, actor name) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which signal a safe, read-only operation. The description's 'Query' aligns with this but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data source freshness, or response structure), so it stays at the baseline for annotation-covered tools.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. Every word adds information, making it extremely concise and well structured.
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 simple read-only query tool with three self-explanatory parameters, the description, schema, and annotations provide sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks explicit return-format information, but the absence of an output schema is offset by the straightforward query nature and the readOnlyHint.
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 schema already defines all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond naming content types (IOCs, threat actors, campaigns); it does not explain how to use 'type' or 'limit' beyond what the schema states.
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?
Description starts with a specific verb ('Query') and identifies the exact resource ('threat intelligence data') with three concrete content categories (IOCs, threat actors, campaigns). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly CMDB, HR, or ITSM related.
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?
The phrase 'threat intelligence data' clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate, especially given no other threat-intel tool is listed among siblings. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative is mentioned, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.