misp-mcp

misp_feed_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize all threat feeds in a MISP instance, showing total and enabled feeds with their IDs, names, and providers.

Instructions

Summarize the instance's threat feeds.

Returns JSON: {"total": int, "enabled": int, "enabled_feeds": [{"id", "name", "provider"}]}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "misp_feed_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact JSON output format, including the enabled_feeds array with id, name, and provider fields, which annotations do not cover.

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 at two sentences: one for purpose, one for output format. No extraneous words, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, clear output schema in description), it is nearly complete. Minor gap: no mention of edge cases like zero feeds, but that is acceptable for a straightforward read-only 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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description correctly omits parameter details. It effectively communicates the tool's stateless, input-free nature, meriting a score above baseline.

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 'Summarize the instance's threat feeds', using a specific verb and resource. The explicit listing of the JSON output structure differentiates it from sibling tools like misp_instance_status, which likely returns overall instance health.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the zero parameters and clear purpose implicitly indicate it's for retrieving aggregate feed statistics. Could mention it's not for individual feed details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server