Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Detection Workbench

Detection Workbench

by andrewbrooks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

diff_runs

Compares two detection runs to identify alerts added, removed, or changed, grouped by SID for review.

Instructions

Alerts added, removed and changed between two runs, grouped by SID. Example: diff_runs(run_a="r-0002", run_b="r-0003")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "run_a": "<run_a>",
      "run_b": "<run_b>"
    },
    "name": "diff_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_aYes
run_bYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is grouped by SID and lists alert categories, but omits critical behavioral details such as directionality (diff from A to B?), run existence requirements, error behavior, and full return shape.

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?

The description is two sentences: purpose first, example second. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous language.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter diff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and shows an example call. However, it leaves gaps around directionality and return structure that an agent would need to invoke and interpret the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives an example with run_a and run_b as run IDs, but does not explain the semantics of the parameters, such as which run is the baseline or the expected ID format beyond the example.

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?

The description states a specific operation: diffing alerts between two runs, with added, removed, and changed categories and SID grouping. It distinguishes the tool's core behavior but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_alerts or list_cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an example call but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or statement of what situations call for a run diff.

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