Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tenable OT Security MCP Server

Tenable OT Security MCP Server

by aqamahn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List protocol groups

list_protocol_groups

Retrieve active protocol groups with protocol type and optional port ranges for asset inventory and security analysis.

Instructions

Page through every active protocol group. Each item carries a protocol (TCP/UDP/MODBUS/S7/IEC104/DNP3/etc.) and optional port range.

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": "list_protocol_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
after_cursorNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool pages through results and describes the content of each item. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or outline any error behavior, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which is a moderate gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, comprising two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope, while the second clarifies the returned item composition. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description covers the core purpose and result content, and the existence of an output schema supplements return details. It also clarifies the 'active' scope, which is important given archived variants. The main omission is explicit pagination traversal guidance, but 'Page through' implies cursor-based usage, making this adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only says 'Page through', which hints at pagination but does not explain the roles of 'limit' and 'after_cursor'. The schema provides default values and titles, but the description adds minimal extra meaning for how to use these parameters effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource combination: 'Page through every active protocol group.' It clearly indicates a paginated listing operation and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'active', which contrasts with the archived variant (list_archived_protocol_groups) and the single-item getter (get_protocol_group).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by specifying it applies to 'every active protocol group', implicitly excluding archived groups and single-group retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use this tool.

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