otx_search_pulsesGet recent threat intelligence from AlienVault OTX to identify active security threats. Requires an OTX API key.
Fetch recent AlienVault OTX threat pulses (needs OTX_API_KEY).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| 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 establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful operational constraint that an OTX_API_KEY is required, which goes beyond the structured metadata. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-only fetch this is reasonable.
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. The action and resource come first, and the API key requirement is placed in a concise parenthetical.
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 a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an important auth requirement. However, it does not clarify how the API key is supplied or what 'recent' means, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch recent AlienVault OTX threat pulses.' It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool otx_indicator, so it falls just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only contextual guidance is the parenthetical 'needs OTX_API_KEY,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over other OSINT/OTX alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.