Retrieve and filter a detection run's alerts by SID, source or destination address, or packet range to isolate relevant events for triage.
Page or filter a run's alerts by SID, source/destination address or packet range. Example: get_alerts(run_id="r-0002", sid=1000042, src="10.0.4.20", limit=20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst | No | ||
| sid | No | ||
| src | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| pkt_to | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| pkt_from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read via 'Page or filter' but never states that it is read-only, non-destructive, what the default page size is, or how pagination termination works — for an 8-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: capability first, then a compact, immediately usable invocation example. Nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 an 8-parameter filter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape (list of alerts? total count?) and several parameter meanings unaddressed. It is adequate to start a call but not complete enough to invoke confidently across all filters.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it names run_id, sid, src, dst, limit and the packet range, and the example anchors concrete values. However, offset and the semantics of pkt_from/pkt_to (inclusive? packet index vs number?) and SID meaning are left undefined, so it only partially compensates.
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?
States a specific verb ('Page or filter') and resource ('a run's alerts') with the scoping key (run_id) and the dimensions available for filtering. It is distinguishable from siblings like explain_alert or pcap_summary, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Page or filter', and the example shows a typical filtered call, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over explain_alert or pcap_summary, and no preconditions (e.g., the run must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.