tanium-gateway-mcp

by do345

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Tanium module and resource (assets, CVEs, patches, discovery, integrity, reporting, threat alerts). Even similar tools like get_cve_findings and get_filtered_cve_findings are clearly differentiated by the filtering purpose. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
Naming Consistency4/5
Almost all tools follow the consistent 'get_' + noun phrase pattern (e.g., get_all_assets, get_cve_findings). The single exception is resolve_threat_alert, which uses an action verb instead of 'get'. This minor deviation is acceptable but prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count4/5
With 21 tools, the server covers a broad range of Tanium functionality (asset, compliance, CVE, patch, discovery, integrity, reporting, threat). This is on the higher end of what's reasonable, but each tool maps to a specific business need and no redundant tools exist, so the count is appropriate for the scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers all major query capabilities for the described business requirements (asset identification, CVE findings, patch applicability, reporting). While it lacks create/update/delete actions for most resources, the server appears intended primarily for read-oriented operations, and the one action (resolve_threat_alert) is included. Minor gaps exist, such as no filtered asset listing or deployment creation, but core workflows are covered.
Average 3.4/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It correctly states the operation is a retrieval ('조회'), but it does not disclose the output format, whether pagination is supported (though the 'first' param suggests it), any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parenthetical business requirement adds minor context but does not detract. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and some detail fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default result size, or how to handle large result sets. With no annotations, more explicit disclosure (e.g., read-only nature) would be expected, but given the simplicity, the current level is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'first' with its description ('조회할 자산 수 (기본 50)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, but no additional context is necessary.
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 uses a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (전체 IT자산 목록과 상세 정보) and names the fields returned (OS, processor, virtualization, domain). It clearly states it returns all assets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_installed_applications or get_asset_product_endpoints without explicitly naming them, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It mentions a business requirement ('IT자산 식별·관리') but that is context, not usage criteria. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditional triggers are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the included fields (CVSS, CISA KEV) but does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, pagination behavior, or potential errors. It lacks detail about return structure and operational constraints, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The inclusion of a business requirement parenthetical ('업무요건') adds noise but does not significantly hinder clarity. It is efficient and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, read-only behavior, and how this relates to sibling tools. It only mentions field content, omitting pagination details, usage context, and the distinction from 'get_filtered_cve_findings'. An agent would still face uncertainty when selecting or calling this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'first' is fully described in the schema (default 20), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention any parameters or add semantic depth beyond the schema, so it adds no extra value here. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool queries CVE vulnerability findings for endpoints, mentioning CVSS v3 score/severity and CISA KEV inclusion. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_filtered_cve_findings', leaving some ambiguity about the unfiltered nature implied by the name.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the filtered alternative, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only (though 'get' implies it), does not describe the return format (no output schema), and does not mention pagination behavior beyond the 'first' parameter's default. The mention of included fields gives some insight but omits critical details like response structure and any limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key result fields. No redundant wording; the business requirement is an optional addendum. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with fully documented schema, the description is incomplete primarily in usage context. It lacks explicit guidance on when to select this over siblings, does not mention read-only behavior, and provides no details on output shape beyond the three fields. With no annotations or output schema, the description leaves the agent to infer key operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cveId and first) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions CVE ID as a filter but does not clarify if other conditions exist. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 clearly states the tool's function: searching patch definitions (catalog) by conditions such as CVE ID, mentioning included fields (severity, release date, super-seed). It distinguishes the resource (patch catalog) from sibling tools like get_cve_findings, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling get_* tools. The parenthetical business requirement (EOL/패치 대응) provides some context but does not direct the agent to choose this over alternatives or state exclusions. With 21 siblings, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. '조회' implies a read operation, but no explicit statement of non-destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior is provided. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. The parenthetical about business requirements is extra context but does not detract. It is efficient with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no description of the return structure (e.g., array of report objects) or pagination details. Behavioral aspects like how 'first' affects results are not explained. For a list-retrieval tool, this is incomplete for agents to use without extra inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (text, first, moduleName) are already documented. The description does not add additional semantics or clarify usage beyond the schema, which is already sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb '조회' (retrieve) and the resource '보고서 목록' (list of reports) with included fields. It is specific about what it does but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_report_result_data, which could be a related tool for fetching report data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention any related tools or conditions. The context '정기 보고/대시보드 현황 파악' is a business requirement but does not provide tool-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool queries status, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. For a status query, this is minimal but not misleading; it lacks substantive behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. The parenthetical business requirement adds a minor extra but does not significantly dilute clarity. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could be considered non-essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., boolean, detailed progress report), what possible values exist, or whether the tool returns anything beyond deployment progress. With no parameters, it could easily have clarified the return semantics. This is incomplete for an agent needing accurate call outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is being queried (deployment status), which is useful context even though there is nothing to parameterize. No extra parameter semantics are needed.
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 verb ('조회' - query) and resource (Integrity Monitor deployment status for monitors/watchlists). It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_integrity_monitor_monitors or get_integrity_monitor_watchlists, which likely list items rather than report deployment status.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a parenthetical business requirement but no context about prerequisites, timing, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer that this is for checking deployment progress, but no explicit when/when-not guidance exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that assets are retrieved; it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, potential performance concerns, or that it is a read-only operation. The operational details are minimal and leave the agent guessing about side effects or constraints.
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 a single concise sentence with a short parenthetical business context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary filler. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential 'what' but omits context like what 'Asset solution 기준' means operationally (e.g., filtering source). The 'first' parameter is already documented in the schema, so no gap there. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., empty result behavior) makes it only minimally complete for a basic query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with examples, so the description adds little beyond restating that vendor/name/version define the product. This matches the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting; the description offers no additional semantic nuance.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of assets with a specific software product installed, using vendor/product/version as filters. It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_installed_applications' which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a business requirement but does not state conditions for selection or explicitly point to siblings like 'get_installed_applications'. Agents must infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., whether it is read-only, if pagination is supported, or how errors are handled). Although querying data is implicitly read-only, this is not stated, and no operational context is given beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—a single clear sentence followed by a short parenthetical business note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary verbiage. The parenthetical is slightly redundant but does not detract from clarity. This earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data-retrieval tool without an output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., structure of rows/columns), how pagination works (even though 'first' is in the schema, its role in iterating results is not described), and any edge cases (e.g., invalid report ID). None of this is covered, leaving the agent with an underspecified contract for invoking and consuming the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and first), including default and max values for first. The description adds no extra semantic insight beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage. No additional context like dependencies or acceptable value ranges is provided.
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 clearly states the verb (조회/query) and the specific resource (report result data with row/column values). It distinctly identifies the tool's function—retrieving actual result data for a given report ID—which differentiates it from siblings like get_reports, which presumably lists reports rather than their data. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as first obtaining a report ID from get_reports. The description only states the business requirement ('report data extraction and automation') without instructing the agent on the correct workflow or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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 conveys a read-only query operation (조회) and states what data is returned (category, standard, rule, status), but discloses nothing about pagination behavior beyond the 'first' parameter, limits, empty-result handling, or the exact shape of the response. For a simple look-up tool this is adequate but thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main action first. However, the parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 준수율/컴플라이언스)' is internal-note noise that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool and could have been omitted.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description hints at return values by listing included fields, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It's minimally sufficient but leaves the meaning of 'first' (asset count vs. finding count) and likely pagination behavior unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'first' parameter ('조회할 자산 수, 기본 20'). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 uses a specific verb (조회/retrieve) with a clear resource (endpoint compliance violation findings) and lists the fields included (category, standard, rule, status). The 'Compliance' keyword clearly distinguishes this from the CVE-oriented findings siblings (get_cve_findings, get_filtered_cve_findings), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical business requirement (패치 준수율/컴플라이언스, patch compliance rate) gives some context about when this is relevant, implying it serves compliance/patch-rate queries. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains what is retrieved but does not mention pagination, sorting, default behavior beyond what is in the schema, authentication requirements, or any side effects. As a read operation, the absence of explicit safety information is a 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes relevant details about the returned items. It is concise and avoids filler, though it could arguably be more structured by separating the work-requirement note. Nevertheless, it earns high marks for efficiency.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It does not mention pagination mechanics beyond the schema default, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but given the minimal complexity, the missing pieces are not critical. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'first' is fully described in the schema (count, default 20, max 50). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Under high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is given.
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 ('조회' – retrieve) and resource ('Integrity Monitor 모니터 목록' – list of Integrity Monitor monitors), and enumerates the content (scan settings, priority, target computer groups). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_integrity_monitor_status and get_integrity_monitor_watchlists, which address different aspects of integrity monitoring.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The appended '(업무요건: 무결성 모니터링 정책 현황)' hints at a use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_integrity_monitor_status or get_integrity_monitor_watchlists. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('조회'), but gives no details about authentication, rate limits, or response characteristics. It says what info is returned but not the format or edge cases. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the main purpose stated first. The parenthetical is minor but not distracting. Every element is relevant to the tool's core function, with no waste.
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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description names the key detail categories (타겟 그룹, 일정, 상태, 재시작 여부), which helps the agent anticipate the response. However, it fails to note the overlap with get_deployment_status or when to prefer this tool, leaving some ambiguity in a suite with similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'id' has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the ID format, usage, or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states a specific verb (조회) and resource (Patch 배포 상세 정보), and lists the kind of details returned (대상 그룹, 일정, 상태, 재시작 여부). It distinguishes from the general get_deployment_status by focusing on patch deployment specifics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deployment_status. The parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 배포 현황)' appears to be a business requirement note, not usage context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'sensor-based' but fails to state explicitly that this is a read-only query, what data is returned (beyond a list), or any error/rate-limit behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 적용 대상 파악)' adds business context that is not directly useful for invocation and could be omitted, but it does not harm focus. Overall efficient with minimal waste.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states what the tool returns conceptually (list of applicable patches) and the basis (sensor). However, '센서 기반' is left unexplained and there is no mention of pagination or result format, which could be relevant but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter fully (name and example), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Description states a specific verb (조회/query), a precise resource (적용 가능한 패치 목록), and a clear qualifier (지정한 컴퓨터 그룹, sensor-based). This distinguishes it from sibling patch tools like get_patch_definitions (definition list) and get_patch_deployment (deployment status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage — when you need to know which patches are applicable to a computer group — but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other patch-related siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the context, but no direct routing guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a catalog (implying a read operation via '조회'), but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The description only covers what it returns, not how it behaves operationally.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most valuable detail (returned fields) within the first phrase. The parenthetical business requirement adds usage context without bloating. No wasted words.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It lists the returned fields and the business context, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides. Minor gaps such as absence of pagination or default behavior are acceptable for a simple catalog query, but not severe enough to lower further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is no need for parameter explanations. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond naming the output fields, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 applies.
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 clearly states a specific verb (조회/query) and resource (software package catalog), and lists the returned fields (product name, vendor, version, applicable seats). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, the context of 'Deploy 솔루션' distinguishes it adequately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a business requirement context '(업무요건: 패치/SW 배포 현황)', which implies usage for patch/SW deployment monitoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving the selection decision partially to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the operation is a read-only query (조회) and mentions the isManaged field, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (e.g., the 'first' parameter's effect) or any permission requirements. Since it's a simple read operation, the description adequately conveys the core behavior but lacks some depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a valuable detail about the isManaged field and a business requirement note. It is two sentences, efficiently using space without redundancy, though the business requirement could be considered extra context that isn't strictly necessary for invoking the tool.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the source of data (Discover network scan), the field of interest (isManaged), and enough context for the intended use case. It does not describe the response structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'first' with a description ('조회할 인터페이스 수 (기본 50)') that explains its meaning and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without extra value.
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 clearly states the tool queries the list of interfaces (assets) discovered by the Discover network scan, with the verb '조회합니다' (query). It also mentions the isManaged field for checking Tanium management status. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like get_unmanaged_interfaces, the mention of isManaged and the business requirement implies differentiation, making the purpose clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a business requirement context ('전산화 수준, Tanium 관리 비율') which hints at when this tool might be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_unmanaged_interfaces. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated, so an agent would need to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the use of Tanium Gateway's FieldFilter format, which is a meaningful technical behavior. However, it does not mention side effects (though likely read-only), authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the first parameter. It lacks the depth expected with 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loading the purpose and key filter examples. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbiage, though the Korean phrasing is slightly longer than needed.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns; it only says 'findings' without detailing the response structure. The complex filter format is hinted at but not fully specified, and the relationship to get_cve_findings is not addressed. This leaves room for improvement in completeness for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). Beyond the schema, the description adds the FieldFilter format context and typical filter fields (cveYear, severity, etc.), which is valuable for constructing the filter correctly. It does not explain the 'first' parameter beyond the schema, but the extra filter guidance justifies a score above baseline.
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 clearly states the verb '조회합니다' (queries) and the resource 'CVE 취약점 findings', with explicit filter conditions (cveYear, severity, isCisaKev, firstFound). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on filtered results, but does not explicitly name get_cve_findings as the unfiltered alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical business requirements (Critical, CISA KEV, recent N days) hint at when to use this tool, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of' statement or exclusion of alternative tools. It implies usage context rather than providing clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves a list; it does not mention pagination behavior, any side effects, or the exact nature of the result set. Given the tool name says 'interfaces' but description says 'assets', there is also a slight inconsistency that could confuse agents. The description is too sparse to carry the behavioral burden without 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 a single concise sentence with the key intent front-loaded. The parenthetical business requirement is slightly redundant but not verbose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool with one parameter, but it lacks a clear statement of the return format (e.g., what fields are included) and does not resolve the 'interfaces' vs 'assets' terminology mismatch. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is not severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'first' parameter as '조회할 인터페이스 수' (number of interfaces to retrieve). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and a specific resource '미관리 자산 목록' (unmanaged asset list), and explicitly restricts to '목록만' (only) unmanaged assets, distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_assets. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'only unmanaged assets', which suggests it is not for managed assets, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The parenthetical business requirement adds minor context but no actionable routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status counts and that ID is optional, which is useful. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or reversibility, but for a read operation this is acceptable.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the optional ID behavior, followed by a parenthetical business requirement. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return categories (completed/failed/pending/downloading) and the condition for full vs. specific queries. It misses details like response structure or error cases, but for a simple read tool it is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the id parameter described as '조회할 배포 ID (미지정 시 전체 조회)'. The tool description repeats this behavior without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb '조회' (query) and the resource 'deployment status', and specifies that it returns counts of completion/failure/pending/downloading. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_patch_deployment by focusing on deployment status rather than patch-specific operations, though it does not explicitly contrast itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that omitting ID returns overall status, which is a usage condition. It also includes a business requirement note about patch deployment success rate, implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action is a retrieval ('조회'), implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the 'first' parameter mentioned in the schema. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a brief business context note. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides enough information for an agent to know what it does, and the schema covers the parameter. While it does not explain the return format or pagination, the absence is not critical for a basic list retrieval tool, and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'first' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The tool description does not add any additional context about the parameter, such as its default value or usage nuances. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Integrity Monitor watchlist (monitored files/directories/registry paths). The verb '조회' (retrieve) and specific resource '워치리스트' (watchlist) make it unambiguous, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_integrity_monitor_status or get_integrity_monitor_monitors by naming the exact object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other integrity monitor tools or mention any exclusions or alternatives. While the purpose is clear, an agent is not told when to prefer this over similar siblings, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb '조회' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, and the description explicitly says it returns aggregated counts, giving some transparency. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination behavior beyond the parameter default, or resource intensity. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich, hence a mid-level score.
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 consists of two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose directly, and the second provides a concrete use case. The most important information (what it does) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a relevant use case. It implicitly notes the aggregation nature and the parameter is documented in the schema. While it could add a note about edge cases (e.g., no labels found) or explicitly state that it returns aggregated counts per label, such details are not strictly required for an agent to call the tool correctly. Overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a description for the only parameter 'first' ('조회할 레이블 수 (기본 20)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per the calibration rule, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value added.
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 ('조회' = retrieve), a specific resource (Discover labels/tags), and the exact output (managed/unmanaged asset counts aggregation). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_discover_interfaces or get_unmanaged_interfaces by focusing on labels and their aggregated counts, so an agent can identify this tool without ambiguity.
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 a clear usage context: 'when creating a Tanium management ratio dashboard'. This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternatives among the sibling tools. Since the context is explicit but exclusions are absent, it fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool internally opens a Direct Connect connection (implying network dependency) and retrieves only the last 24 hours of alerts, setting expectations about latency and data recency. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the verb '조회' implies inquiry, and the description adds more behavioral context than a minimal update tool would.
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 concise and front-loaded. The first clause states the main purpose (querying endpoint threat alerts), followed by implementation details (Direct Connect, 24-hour window) and a business-requirement note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It is short, informative, and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: the endpoint scope, the time window, and the internal connection behavior. It does not describe the return format, but the purpose and name make it clear that a list of alerts is returned. The business requirement adds practical context for when this tool is needed. It is nearly complete for the simplicity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the endpointId parameter has a full description in the schema, including the instruction to use computerID from get_all_assets. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool queries Threat Response alerts (performance/anomaly detection) for a specific endpoint, using the Korean verb '조회합니다' (queries). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly focusing on endpoint threat alerts, which is unique among the sibling list that includes asset, compliance, CVE, and patch tools. The added detail about the last 24 hours and business requirement further specifies its scope.
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 on when to use the tool: for endpoint threat alerts, specifically zero-day or anomaly detection history within the last 24 hours. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling set makes this fairly obvious. The business requirement note ('제로데이/이상탐지 이력') gives a purpose, but lacks an explicit exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states a read-like operation ('조회') and lists that both installed and running applications are included, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response structure (e.g., whether results are grouped by endpoint), pagination, or any performance considerations. While the tool appears simple, the lack of explicit behavior details leaves some ambiguity.
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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core action, scope, and purpose without extraneous words. The parenthetical notes are brief and provide valuable business context. It is front-loaded with the main action and clearly structured for quick scanning.
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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (list installed and running applications), for each endpoint, and why (open source component identification). While it doesn't specify return format or potential grouping, these are minor for such a tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not introduce any ambiguity. It accurately describes the operation without needing to reference inputs.
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 '조회합니다' (queries/lists) and a precise resource: '각 엔드포인트에 설치된 애플리케이션 및 실행 중인 애플리케이션' (installed and running applications on each endpoint). It also clarifies the business purpose (identifying open source components). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on CVE, patches, compliance, or assets.
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 contextual guidance by stating the business requirement '오픈소스 관리' (open source management) and the intended use case '오픈소스 컴포넌트 파악' (identifying open source components). This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools cover distinct domains, so the context is sufficient for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the status change is irreversible and advises user confirmation before calling, which is critical safety information for an agent. It does not disclose authentication requirements or error behavior, but for a simple state change, this is sufficient. The irreversibility warning goes beyond a generic mutation and earns a 4.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, immediately followed by the crucial irreversibility warning and a business-requirement note. Every phrase earns its place with no filler, making it both efficient and effective.
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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, the irreversible side effect, and a usage context. It doesn't describe return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It could hint at error conditions (e.g., invalid GUID), but given the simplicity, it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'guid' is already fully described in the schema (description: '해결 처리할 알림의 GUID'). The tool description only repeats 'GUID' without adding format, constraints, or usage details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra value here, keeping the score at the baseline 3.
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 clearly states the action (change a specific Threat Response alert to Resolved) with a specific resource (alert identified by GUID) and the effect (state change). It stands out from the sibling tools, which are all get_* read operations, as the only mutation tool, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 conveys the context (threat response handling) and implicitly distinguishes itself from all get_* siblings by being the only state-changing tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling list, the intended usage is clear. A strong but not explicit exclusion keeps this at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Tanium-Gateway-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/do345/Tanium-Gateway-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/do345/Tanium-Gateway-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Tanium-Gateway-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/do345/Tanium-Gateway-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/do345/Tanium-Gateway-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/do345/Tanium-Gateway-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server