Google Threat Intelligence MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between the 'search_threats' tool and the more specific search tools (e.g., search_threat_actors, search_malware_families). The descriptions clarify that 'search_threats' is generic and can be filtered by collection_type, but an agent might still be confused about when to use the generic versus specific search tools. The 'get_entities_related_to_a_*' tools are clearly scoped to different entity types, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly. For example, 'analyse_file', 'get_collection_report', 'search_threats', and 'update_collection_attributes' all adhere to the same convention. This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand the action and target of each tool.
Tool Count3/5
With 36 tools, the count is high but reasonable given the broad scope of Google Threat Intelligence, which covers files, domains, IPs, URLs, collections, and threat profiles. However, it borders on being heavy (16-25+ tools), which could overwhelm an agent. The tools are well-organized but the sheer number might lead to complexity in tool selection for some tasks.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for threat intelligence operations, including analysis (e.g., analyse_file, get_*_report), collection management (create_collection, update_collection_attributes), relationship exploration (get_entities_related_to_*), and search across various threat types (search_*). There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD-like operations for collections and extensive querying capabilities across the domain.
Average 3.6/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 23, 2026
- 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?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not state it's read-only, safe, or idempotent. Fails to mention required permissions, rate limits, or that the API key parameter indicates authentication needs. The listed attributes may be inconsistent with the actual return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose with a long list of attributes that likely belong in the output schema rather than the description. This redundancy reduces clarity. The structure front-loads the purpose but then dives into a confusing attribute list that includes duplicate fields (e.g., last_modification_date twice).
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description inaccurately attempts to define return fields, creating potential contradictions. No context about authentication, pagination, or error handling. Lacks integration guidance with sibling tools. The description is neither complete nor reliable for an agent to use effectively.
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. It only explains 'profile_id' as 'Threat Profile identifier at Google Threat Intelligence', which is minimal. The 'api_key' parameter is entirely undocumented. For a 2-parameter tool with 0% coverage, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get Threat Profile object' with a clear verb and resource, but the extensive attribute list includes fields like 'aliases', 'description', 'first_seen_date' that seem more appropriate for a threat actor object rather than a profile, causing confusion. No differentiation from sibling tools like get_threat_profile_recommendations or list_threat_profiles.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_threat_profiles for listing all profiles). No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites mentioned. The description assumes the agent already knows the context.
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 mentions that it returns a dictionary, but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, safe, or requires any permissions. For a retrieval tool, basic safety inference is possible but not explicit.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the 'Args' and 'Return' sections are somewhat redundant and could be integrated more concisely. It is adequate but not optimally structured.
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 tool has an output schema, the return explanation is acceptable, but the description fails to document the 'api_key' parameter and provides no additional context about usage or behavior. For a two-parameter tool, this is incomplete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'id' parameter as collection identifiers, but completely ignores the 'api_key' parameter. Thus only partial parameter documentation is provided, falling short of the needed coverage.
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 it retrieves Mitre tactics and techniques associated with a threat, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the MITRE tree, which is unique among the listed siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of context or prerequisites for calling this tool.
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 cover behavioral aspects. It only says 'retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not discuss side effects, authentication needs (beyond the api_key parameter), error behavior, rate limits, or any other consequences. The return object is mentioned but not detailed, though an output schema exists.
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 moderately concise but includes some repetitive or tangential information (e.g., the list of collection types). The Args section is brief. It could be more streamlined without losing clarity.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it should cover the input parameters and usage context. The description lacks details on the api_key parameter and does not explain the tool's role among siblings. The mention of 'collection_type' in the return is helpful but insufficient for complete context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'id' as required and mentions 'api_key' in the Args section, but provides no explanation of what these parameters are or how they should be used. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.
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 that the tool retrieves a collection by ID. It mentions the context of Google Threat Intelligence and lists example collection types, but the purpose is somewhat muddled by equating 'collections' with 'threats' and mentioning 'report' as a type, which might confuse the tool's name. Overall, it distinguishes itself from sibling get tools by focusing on collections.
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 versus alternatives. The description only explains that threats are modeled as collections and that this tool retrieves them. No comparisons, prerequisites, or exclusion 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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return type (list of objects) and a single relationship, but does not mention read-only behavior, permission requirements, error handling, or pagination limits beyond the limit parameter.
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 front-loaded with purpose and includes a useful table. It is concise with no redundancy, though it contains a minor typo ('the the'). The Args/Returns format is clear.
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?
While output schema exists, the description omits the api_key parameter and only lists one possible relationship, leaving ambiguity about other possible values for relationship_name. For a tool with 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions in schema, the description is incomplete.
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%, making the description crucial. The description explains relationship_name and limit but omits the api_key parameter entirely. ruleset_id is only briefly described. This misses a significant parameter and does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 entities related to a hunting ruleset, with a table showing the specific relationship. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_collection, which perform similar tasks for different resources.
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 over alternatives or prerequisites. The description does not mention any context for choosing this tool among the many related entity retrieval tools.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return attributes but does not mention authentication needs (api_key parameter), rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive.
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 structured with bullet points for response attributes and is not overly verbose. However, it could be slightly more concise by not repeating 'the object directly associated with the threat profile' multiple times.
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 tool has 3 input parameters and no annotations, the description should cover input explanations and usage context. It partially covers output but leaves limit and api_key unexplained. This is incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.
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 explain parameters. The description implicitly mentions profile_id by referencing the Threat Profile, but it does not explain the limit or api_key parameters. The return format is described, but input semantics are lacking.
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 that the tool retrieves the associations timeline for a given Threat Profile. It lists important response attributes, which adds clarity. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_threat_profile or get_collection_timeline_events.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a valid profile_id, nor does it provide any exclusions or usage context.
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 does not mention authentication via api_key, rate limits, error handling, or the scope of the report. The description only states the basic purpose, failing to inform the agent about important runtime behaviors.
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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more efficient by omitting the redundant 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels since they add little value. Overall, it is concise but not overly so.
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 lack of annotations and the presence of two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not cover the api_key parameter, does not explain what the report contains (beyond 'insights'), and lacks behavioral context. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to reduce the burden.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'domain' as 'Domain to analyse' but does not specify format or constraints. The 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantic role completely undocumented.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('comprehensive domain analysis report'), and the source ('Google Threat Intelligence'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which target different entities (file, IP, URL, etc.).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with sibling report tools. The description assumes the user knows the tool is for domain analysis.
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, the description carries full burden. It explains the return type (dictionary of IOCs), search space options, and descriptors_only behavior. However, it lacks info on side effects (assumed read-only), error handling, and permissions. The massive feature list adds transparency but is not structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly long due to an inline enumeration of feature types, which could be referenced externally. The inclusion of an extra parameter not in schema disrupts structure. However, the main purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section is somewhat organized.
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 complexity (7 params, many feature types, no annotations), the description covers feature types extensively but fails to describe entity_type and api_key, and includes an extraneous param. Output schema exists, so return structure is partially covered, but overall completeness is marred by omissions and errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain parameters. It does for most, but entity_type has an empty description, api_key is entirely missing, and critically, it references a non-existent parameter (entity_type_plural) that contradicts the input schema. This misleads the agent.
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 IOCs from a collection matching a specific feature, uses specific verbs and resources (Retrieves Indicators of Compromise from a collection that match a specific feature), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_collections_commonalities by emphasizing pivoting from commonalities to specific IOCs.
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 pivoting from commonalities (e.g., attack_techniques) to specific IOCs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_file. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
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?
The description states 'Retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but lacks explicit statements about idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the description could have provided more behavioral context, but it does not contradict any.
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 short and includes a structured Args/Returns section. However, the Args section is incomplete as it lists only 'hash' and not 'api_key', which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple 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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of usage guidelines and incomplete parameter documentation leaves the tool under-described. The agent lacks crucial context for effective use.
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?
The description explains the 'hash' parameter (type and required), but completely omits the 'api_key' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have covered both parameters; it only covers one, leaving the agent uninformed about the optional api_key.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies a clear resource: 'summary of all the file behavior reports from all the sandboxes'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_file_behavior_report', which likely retrieves a single report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., get_file_behavior_report, get_file_report). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states events are retrieved 'when available', implying possible empty results, but does not disclose auth requirements (api_key parameter not described), rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.
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 paragraph with separate Args/Return section, which is decently structured. However, it includes redundant phrasing ('super valuable', 'always') and could be more concise. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 has 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers purpose and usage guidance but omits parameter details for api_key, does not describe event structure beyond 'list', and lacks error or empty result handling. It is sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive.
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?
The description adds meaning for the 'id' parameter (collection identifier) and return type (list of events). However, it completely ignores the 'api_key' parameter, which is part of the input schema with a default of null. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover all parameters; it fails to explain the api_key role.
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 it retrieves timeline events from a collection, with a specific verb and resource. It adds context about the value ('curated information by security analysts') and suggests use for campaigns and threat actors. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling collection tools, the resource is uniquely identified.
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 explicitly advises using this tool for campaigns and threat actors ('always'), and notes common display grouping by event_category. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the provided guidance is direct and actionable.
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 cover behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. It only describes the return object structure.
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 includes a detailed list of attributes, which is somewhat lengthy for a simple get. The essential purpose is front-loaded, but the attribute list could be more concise.
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 explains the return object well given the output schema, but lacks context on when to choose this over siblings and misses documentation for the api_key parameter.
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 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'ruleset_id' parameter ('Hunting ruleset identifier'), but the 'api_key' parameter is undocumented. Partial compensation for low coverage.
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 'Get a Hunting Ruleset object from Google Threat Intelligence,' specifying the verb, resource, and origin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other entity types.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entities_related_to_a_hunting_ruleset. No exclusions or context 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it updates attributes and returns a dictionary, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, potential side effects, or error conditions.
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 uses a verbose docstring format with separate Args and Returns sections. While it contains useful information, it is not particularly concise and could be streamlined.
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 has 3 parameters and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and return value, but lacks details on error handling, optional parameters, and parameter constraints beyond the listed attributes.
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 has 0% coverage, so the description adds value by listing available attributes (name, description, private, tags, alt_names). However, it omits the 'api_key' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 updates a collection's attributes (name, description, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_iocs_in_collection' which updates IOCs, not attributes.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_collection' or other update tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
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 should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'gets a report' without detailing any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what 'comprehensive' entails. This lacks sufficient transparency for a read operation.
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 with a clear structure (Args/Returns). It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the purpose. The only minor inefficiency is the lack of mention of the api_key parameter, but overall it earns its sentences.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to mention the optional api_key parameter and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_an_ip_address. This leaves gaps for the agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying the ip_address parameter accepts IPv4 or IPv6, which is not in the schema. However, it completely omits the api_key parameter, leaving it undocumented. Thus, partial coverage warrants a 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'comprehensive IP Address analysis report', and the source 'Google Threat Intelligence'. It distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other report types (e.g., domain, file, URL).
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 like get_entities_related_to_an_ip_address or other report tools. It lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.
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 mentions the return format (Markdown) but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or limitations. The word 'retrieve' implies a read operation, which is adequate but not explicit.
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 with a clear front-loaded purpose and a structured Args/Returns section, though it could integrate parameter descriptions more efficiently.
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?
Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter details, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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%. The description only briefly mentions collection_id as 'Collection identifier' but ignores api_key entirely, providing minimal value beyond the schema.
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 'retrieve' and the specific resource 'common characteristics or features of IoCs within a collection', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual reports or entity details.
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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 description carries full burden. It states a report is returned but discloses no behavioral traits like authentication needs (api_key param omitted), rate limits, or error behavior on invalid URLs.
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?
Description is very concise with three short sentences, front-loading the main purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, missing key information about the api_key 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?
While an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description omits important context such as authentication via api_key, prerequisites for the URL, and typical use case for threat intelligence. Basic completeness but with gaps.
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% (no descriptions for parameters). Description only explains the 'url' parameter as required but ignores the 'api_key' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.
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 a comprehensive URL analysis report from Google Threat Intelligence, specifying the resource (URL) and action (get report). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_domain_report or get_file_report.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_domain_report or get_ip_address_report. The description does not mention prerequisites like API key or valid URL, nor does it specify context (e.g., for threat analysis).
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 burden. It states the tool returns a 'concise summary' with key details, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., hash not found), or side effects.
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 with two sentences plus a parameter section. It front-loads the main action and output. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'comprehensive file analysis report' and 'concise summary') but overall well-structured.
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 adequately covers the core function given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., get_file_behavior_report) and does not explain the optional api_key parameter. The overall completeness is moderate.
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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. For the 'hash' parameter, the description adds meaning by specifying allowed hash types (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256) and providing an example. However, the 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive file analysis report'. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the output (detection stats, threat classification) and explicitly mentions accepted hash types (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256).
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 by listing the input and output, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_behavior_report or get_file_behavior_summary. No when-not-to-use or context for api_key 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 bears full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond implying API key, or side effects. Only says 'Returns: List of Threat Profiles'. Lacks transparency for an unannotated tool.
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 somewhat verbose with multiple paragraphs and explanatory text. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but there is redundant content (e.g., repeating 'Threat Profiles' multiple times). Could be more concise without losing clarity.
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?
Given an output schema exists (though not provided) and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage order relative to siblings. However, it lacks parameter documentation and behavioral details, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Two parameters (limit, api_key) exist with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation about what 'limit' controls or how to use 'api_key'. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond parameter names and types.
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 'List your Threat Profiles' and explains what threat profiles are, including top-level filters. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_threats' by specifying that this tool should be used first.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool before 'search_threats' to check for matching threat profiles, and states that recommendations from profiles are more relevant. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.
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, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a list of collections (threats) and describes parameters, but does not address whether the tool is read-only, any auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 moderately concise but includes a docstring with sections like Args and Returns. It is longer than necessary but well-organized. Some redundancy could be trimmed, e.g., repeating default values already in schema.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes returns as a list of collections. It mentions the workflow with get_collection_report. However, it does not cover the 'api_key' parameter, nor does it fully differentiate from sibling search tools. Completeness is acceptable but has clear gaps.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema (which had 0% parameter descriptions). It explains the 'query', 'limit', and 'order_by' parameters with details on sort options and defaults. However, it omits the 'api_key' parameter present in the schema, leaving a gap. Overall, it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 it searches threat campaigns on the Google Threat Intelligence platform. It distinguishes from siblings like search_threats by specifying 'campaigns' and mentions they are modeled as collections, but could be more explicit about what differentiates this from similar search tools.
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 some usage guidance by noting that after getting collections, one can use get_collection_report. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like search_threats or other search tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
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 fully cover behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs (the api_key param is not explained), or any side effects. The only behavioral clue is that it returns a list of collections.
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 well-organized with a clear header, explanation of sorting, and an args section. It is concise (about 150 words) 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?
Given the complexity (4 params, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for basic use, including the relationship to get_collection_report. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, or the structure of returned collections beyond 'list of threats'.
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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning for query, limit, and order_by (including sorting syntax), but the api_key parameter is completely undocumented. This partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 searches for software toolkits in the Google Threat Intelligence platform, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_malware_families or search_threat_actors by specifying the resource type.
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?
Provides guidance on using get_collection_report after retrieval and explains sorting with order_by. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes the return type ('List of entities') and lists relationships but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication (despite an api_key parameter), or has side effects. The term 'Retrieve' implies reading, but explicit confirmation is missing.
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 front-loaded with the purpose but then includes a lengthy table of relationships. While the table is structured and informative, it could be more concise. A minor typo ('the the') reduces clarity. Overall, the structure is logical and the table aids understanding, but verbosity slightly lowers the score.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values beyond 'List of entities related to the URL.' It covers the relationship options comprehensively, which is crucial for this tool. However, it lacks context on authentication (api_key) and rate limits. For a query tool with well-documented relationships, this is nearly complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'url', 'relationship_name', 'descriptors_only' (with a condition), and 'limit' (with default). However, the 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all. Despite this omission, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for the other three required parameters and the optional limit.
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 'Retrieve entities related to the the given URL.' This clearly indicates the action (retrieve) and the resource (entities related to a URL). The tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings that target other entity types (domain, IP, file, etc.), so the purpose is unambiguous 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and sibling tools imply it is for URLs specifically, there is no guidance on contexts where it should be used or avoided, nor any mention of prerequisites or custom use cases. The agent must infer usage from naming alone.
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 bears the full burden. It only states the action and return value but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. Essential context is missing.
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 with the main action. It includes useful cross-references and no unnecessary text. Every sentence adds value.
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 an output schema (though not detailed) and the description covers the input derivation and ID format, it provides adequate context for an agent to use it correctly, except for the omitted api_key parameter.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the file_behaviour_id parameter and its format, but the optional api_key parameter is not mentioned. Partial coverage of parameters reduces effectiveness.
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 file behavior report for a given identifier. It explains how to obtain the identifier via another tool and provides the ID pattern. This differentiates it from siblings like get_file_behavior_summary.
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 explicit guidance on how to get the file behavior ID (via get_entities_related_to_a_file) and the ID format. It does not give when-not-to-use or compare with other siblings, but the context is clear.
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 given. Description explains output (list of collections) and basic behavior, but lacks disclosure of rate limits, authentication details beyond api_key parameter, or state changes.
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?
Reasonably concise with structured args list. Could be slightly shorter, but overall efficient.
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 search tool with output schema available, it covers purpose, next steps, and ordering. Missing api_key info lowers completeness slightly.
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?
Describes query, limit, order_by with defaults and meanings, but api_key parameter is in schema and not mentioned. With 0% schema coverage, this omission is significant.
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?
Clearly states it searches malware families in the GTI platform, explaining they are collections. Distinguishes from siblings like search_threats by specifying the exact resource.
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?
Provides clear guidance on usage: explains ordering options, defaults, and suggests using get_collection_report after. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is adequate.
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 full burden. It explains that threat reports are collections and returns a list, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (the `api_key` parameter), rate limits, pagination details, or any potential side effects. This is sufficient for a search tool but lacks 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 well-structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, context, usage details, parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds information. Minor tightening could remove 'Google Threat Intelligence provides...' but it provides valuable context.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main workflow (search then fetch report). However, the missing `api_key` explanation and lack of pagination details reduce completeness for a tool with four parameters and no other documentation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It adequately describes `query`, `limit` (with default), and `order_by` (with syntax and default). However, the `api_key` parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. For the covered parameters, it adds value beyond the schema by explaining usage.
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's function as searching threat reports in Google Threat Intelligence, explaining that threat reports are modeled as collections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the focus on reports and noting the follow-up use of `get_collection_report` for full details.
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 usage guidance, including how to use `order_by` with examples and the default sorting. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to find threat reports) and what to do next (use `get_collection_report`). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like `search_threats` or `search_threat_actors`.
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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the return structure based on relationship, and the impact of `descriptors_only`. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or mention any authentication or rate limit requirements. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 well-structured with a table and bullet points. The first sentence is concise. Minor issues: double parenthesis in 'descriptors_only (optional)):' and 'the the' typo. The length is justified by the need to enumerate many relationships.
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 complexity of multiple relationship types and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential information: valid relationships, return types, key parameter constraints, and default behavior. The missing explanation for `api_key` and lack of output schema details are minor gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `id` implicitly as 'collection identifier', `relationship_name` via the table of valid values, `limit` with default, and `descriptors_only` with important note. However, the `api_key` parameter is not mentioned at all. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics for most parameters.
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 'Retrieve entities related to the given collection ID.' and provides a detailed table of relationships with return types. The tool name and description differentiate it from siblings that retrieve entities related to other object types (domain, file, etc.).
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 gives specific guidance on parameter usage, notably that `descriptors_only` must be `False` for `attack_techniques`. It explains default `limit` and the effect of `descriptors_only`. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other entity retrieval tools, though the name and list of siblings provide implicit context.
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?
The description discloses key behaviors: required parameters (domain, relationship_name, descriptors_only), a constraint (descriptors_only must be True for certain object types), and the default limit. The table explains return types for each relationship. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it omits pagination or error behavior.
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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose. The table is well-organized but lengthy; it is justified given the many relationship types. The Args section is cleanly separated. While not extremely concise, the structure serves the tool's complexity well.
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 5 parameters and output schema, the description covers the relationship_name parameter in depth, explains required params and constraints, and mentions default limit. It omits api_key and pagination details, but the output schema exists. Overall, it is mostly complete for a retrieval tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing and explaining most parameters in the Args section. The table exhaustively documents valid values for relationship_name and their return types. However, the api_key parameter is missing from the Args section, leaving it undocumented.
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 starts with 'Retrieve entities related to the given domain,' clearly stating the verb and resource. The extensive table further specifies what entities (e.g., reports, files, subdomains) are retrieved, making the purpose explicit and differentiating it from sibling tools by object type.
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 versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_entities_related_to_a_collection). The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The table lists relationships but does not help the agent choose among them.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the file will be shared with the community, which is a key privacy implication. It also notes that it returns an analysis report. However, it lacks details on potential destructive actions, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the optional api_key.
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 (two sentences plus an Args/Returns section), with no unnecessary information. The structure is clear with separate sections for description, arguments, and returns.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context: what it does, the file path requirement, and that it returns an analysis report. It could be more specific about the report format, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's basic function.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does for file_path by specifying it is required, of type path, and to use absolute path. However, the api_key parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose unclear beyond the schema default of null.
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 'Upload and analyse the file in VirusTotal', using a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools which are mostly read-only queries and searches, this is the only tool that performs an upload and analysis, making it easily distinguishable.
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 the action of uploading and sharing with the community, implying when to use it (for file analysis). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_file_report for already analyzed files).
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions the return value (a dictionary) and that at least one IOC is required. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether existing collections are overwritten) or authorization requirements. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 structured with Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential details. Minor improvements could be made by removing redundancy (the Args section repeats the description).
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 has an output schema, so the description's focus on input is appropriate. It covers most essential aspects, but omits constraints like maximum IOCs and does not clarify if the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. For a creation tool, additional context on success/failure states would be helpful.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant meaning. It explains the types of IOCs (domains, files, ip_addresses, urls) and the purpose of the 'private' parameter. However, the 'api_key' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap.
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 it creates a new collection in Google Threat Intelligence. It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('collection'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are primarily retrieval or analysis-focused.
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 includes a usage guideline: 'Ask for the collection's privacy... if the user doesn't specify.' This provides context on how to handle user input. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use instructions.
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 full burden. It discloses the return format (list of collections) and ordering defaults, but does not explain authentication requirements (api_key parameter), rate limits, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 well-structured: brief intro, usage guidance, then args list with defaults and syntax. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It mentions returning a list of collections. With a complex tool and many siblings, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query (required), limit (default 10), and order_by (default and syntax). However, the api_key parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap.
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 it searches threat actors in Google Threat Intelligence, specifying that threat actors are modeled as collections. It also mentions the downstream use of get_collection_report, distinguishing it from siblings like search_threats or search_malware_families.
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 usage guidance: after retrieving collections, use get_collection_report for full reports. It also explains ordering syntax. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools, though the context is clear.
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 provided; description explains the descriptors_only constraint and default limit. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or that it's a read operation.
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?
Front-loaded with a clear purpose; the relationship table is informative but lengthy. Could be more concise, but the structure is logical.
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?
Covers relationship options and parameters well, with output schema covering return values. Missing explanation for api_key and pagination/error handling, but overall adequate.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains ip_address, relationship_name, descriptors_only (with a usage note), and limit. However, api_key is not mentioned.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves entities related to an IP address. The detailed table of relationships distinguishes it from sibling tools for other entity types.
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?
Assumes user has an IP address; sibling tools are for other entity types, so context is clear. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but the relationship table guides 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return type ('list of objects'), required parameters, the condition that descriptors_only must be True for certain types, and default limit. However, it lacks details on performance, error handling, or auth requirements.
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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a necessary but lengthy table. While dense, every section adds value, and the structure is logical. Slight reduction in verbosity could be possible but not excessive.
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's complexity (many relationship types, required params), the description is fairly complete. It covers all relationships, parameters, and usage notes. However, it lacks information on pagination, error cases, or rate limits. An output schema exists, reducing need for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining hash as file hash, providing a detailed table of valid relationship_name values, clarifying descriptors_only requirement, and noting the default limit of 10. The api_key parameter is not documented but likely self-explanatory.
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 'Retrieve entities related to the given file hash' and provides a comprehensive table of relationships, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_domain.
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 for retrieving related entities based on a file hash, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_report, and does not discuss exclusions or prerequisites beyond required parameters.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that recommended objects come from ML, added by users. Does not mention rate limits, side effects, or authentication needs, but overall behavioral context is clear.
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?
Description is detailed and well-structured with sections for types and sources. Slightly verbose but necessary for clarity. Front-loads purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely explains return structure, object types, source distinction, and references get_collection_report for full details. Adequate for tool complexity despite output schema existing.
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 0%, so description must compensate. Covers profile_id and limit with explanation, but omits api_key parameter. With 3 params, partial coverage leads to score 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?
Description clearly states it returns objects associated with a Threat Profile, listing specific types and distinguishing between recommended and added objects. The verb 'get' combined with resource name is specific.
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?
Provides context on how recommended vs added objects are distinguished (via source field). Does not explicitly compare to sibling tools but implies usage in threat intelligence workflow. Alternative tool get_collection_report is mentioned for retrieving full objects.
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 discloses that the tool returns collections and explains ordering behavior. However, it does not mention authentication (though api_key param suggests it), rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 well-structured with clear sections. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value (purpose, relation to other tools, parameter details).
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 presence of an output schema (though not detailed in the provided text), the description adequately explains the return type (list of collections). It covers ordering, limits, and the relationship to get_collection_report. It does not cover pagination or error handling, but for a search tool this is reasonable.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which lacks descriptions. It explains the query parameter's role, the default and possible values for limit and order_by, and the format of order_by ('+' for ascending, '-' for descending). The api_key parameter is not mentioned in the description, slightly reducing coverage, but overall it compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.
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 that the tool searches for vulnerabilities (CVEs) in the Google Threat Intelligence platform. It specifies the resource (vulnerabilities) and action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like search_threats by focusing on CVEs and mentioning how results can be used with get_collection_report.
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 context on when to use the tool (searching vulnerabilities) and how to use the results (with get_collection_report). It also explains default ordering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but given the specificity, it is clear enough.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation operation (add/remove) and mentions success/failure return. However, it omits details like whether removals are permanent, required permissions, or behavior when the collection does not exist. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 well-structured using a docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.
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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient detail for the required parameters and return value. However, it lacks discussion of error conditions, edge cases, or behavior under failure, which would make it more complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each required parameter (id, relationship, iocs, operation) and giving examples for iocs. However, the optional api_key parameter is not described in the Args section, missing an opportunity to add meaning.
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 updates (adds or removes) Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) to a collection. It specifies the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'collection', distinguishing from siblings like create_collection (creates new) or search_iocs (reads).
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?
While the description implies usage for adding/removing IOCs from a collection, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_collection_attributes or search_iocs. Some guidance on exclusion would improve clarity.
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?
Describes the return format as a list of dictionaries with rule and metadata, and explains default behavior for top_n and rule_types. No annotations exist, so the description adequately covers behavior for a retrieval tool.
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?
Well-structured with purpose, note, example, args, and returns. Slightly lengthy but each section is useful and not redundant.
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?
Covers essential aspects including parameter details and return format. Could mention api_key usage and error handling, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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?
Adds meaning for three of four parameters beyond schema (e.g., rule_types values, top_n default, collection_id description). Missing api_key documentation, but schema coverage was 0%, so description adds significant value.
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?
Clearly states 'Retrieve top N community rules and all curated hunting rules for a specific collection', specifying a verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools that handle other entities or operations.
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?
Provides examples and details on how to use the rule_types parameter, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like get_hunting_ruleset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses tokenization, special character escaping, case sensitivity, domain search nuances, timeout limits, and noise reduction strategies.
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 long but well-structured with sections for filtering, pagination, tokenization, etc. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail justifies the length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all aspects of a complex search tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Includes pagination, date formatting, and performance tips, making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all parameters (query syntax, size, since/until format, page token, truncate, sanitize). Provides examples and defaults.
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 it searches historical data in Digital Threat Monitoring using Lucene syntax. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other data types like threat reports or IOCs.
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?
Provides extensive guidance on when to use, including filtering by document/threat type, pagination, and performance tips. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the search behavior, ordering, and limit defaults. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or rate limits. The description is transparent but could be slightly improved.
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 well-structured with tables and sections, and it front-loads the main purpose. While it includes external links, every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the detail provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of IOC search with multiple entity types and modifiers, and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers query syntax, entity types, ordering, and defaults, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the query parameter, limit default, order_by values per entity type, and the api_key parameter. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, including entity modifier usage and ordering syntax.
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 searches Indicators of Compromise in the Google Threat Intelligence platform. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on IOC types and providing specific entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool, including the `entity` modifier, supported orders per entity type, and restrictions (entity modifier only once per query). It also links to external documentation for further modifiers and explains integer modifier syntax.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that threats are collections, return objects are full collection objects, and explains default ordering and limit behavior. Does not mention destructive actions, but search is inherently read-only. Could hint at pagination or API key usage, but still adds substantial value beyond schema.
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?
Well-structured with headings, lists, and bold text for key points. Slightly verbose in places (e.g., repeated order_by explanation in args vs. block). Could trim redundant phrasing, but overall front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and high complexity, the description is complete: explains all parameters (except api_key minimally), provides filtering guidance, ordering, and links to related tools. It mentions output schema exists (returns full collection objects). Only missing api_key details, but that is common and acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, giving no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining query, collection_type with available values and usage context, limit default, order_by syntax (including +/-), and mentions api_key (though not detailed). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 it searches threats in the Google Threat Intelligence platform, models threats as collections, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_campaigns or search_malware_families by emphasizing the generic threat search with optional collection_type filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use collection_type based on user request, mentions sibling tools (get_collection_report, get_entities_related_to_a_collection), explains ordering syntax, and gives priority recommendations for 'latest threats' (campaigns/vulnerabilities over reports).
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:

[![gti-mcp-standalone MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/googleSandy/gti-mcp-standalone/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/googleSandy/gti-mcp-standalone)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gti-mcp-standalone MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/googleSandy/gti-mcp-standalone/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/googleSandy/gti-mcp-standalone)

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/googleSandy/gti-mcp-standalone'

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