otx_indicatorEnrich an IP, domain, URL, or hash with threat intelligence from AlienVault OTX to assess its reputation and potential maliciousness.
Enrich an indicator (IP/domain/URL/hash) via AlienVault OTX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | general | |
| indicator | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or how it handles invalid indicators, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It compactly conveys the action, the resource category, and the data source without wasting words.
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 OSINT enrichment tool among many siblings, the description is missing usage context and the meaning of the 'section' parameter. While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the agent still lacks enough information to confidently choose this tool or populate optional parameters correctly.
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%, and the description only clarifies the indicator parameter through the listed types. The 'section' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to know what values are valid or how the default behaves.
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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Enrich', and clearly identifies the resource as an indicator with accepted types (IP/domain/URL/hash). It is distinct from the sibling otx_search_pulses because it focuses on indicators rather than pulses, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling OSINT tools. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions under which OTX enrichment is preferable to dns_lookup, shodan_internetdb, or whois.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.