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, e.g., searching different entity types (search_campaigns, search_malware_families) and retrieving reports (get_file_report, get_domain_report). However, search_threats can filter by collection_type, causing slight overlap with the specific search tools. Overall clear differentiation.
Naming Consistency4/5
Predominantly follows verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_collection, get_collection_report). Inconsistencies include 'analyse_file' (British spelling) versus American spelling used elsewhere, and verbose names like get_entities_related_to_a_collection. Still largely predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With 36 tools, the count is on the high side. The server covers a broad threat intelligence domain, but multiple similar tools (e.g., seven search tools, five get_entities_related_to_* tools) add redundancy. Could be streamlined without losing functionality.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers CRUD operations for collections, detailed reports for various IOC types, and specialized searches. Notable gap: no tool to delete a collection entirely (only update). Digital threat monitoring and hunting rulesets are well-integrated. Minor missing features prevent a perfect score.
Average 3.8/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lists output attributes, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.
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 reasonably concise with a clear first sentence and a structured list of response attributes. However, the list could be streamlined if an output schema were present, and some sentences are redundant (e.g., 'Returns: List of dictionaries').
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 (inferred), the description lacks context about the timeline concept, data ordering, pagination, or how profile_id relates to the response. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, more completeness is needed to ensure correct usage.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should clarify parameter semantics. It only mentions 'for the given Threat Profile' without explaining the profile_id parameter's format or source. The limit parameter is self-explanatory but no additional context is given for how it affects results.
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 'Retrieves the associations timeline for the given Threat Profile,' which identifies the verb and resource. While it is specific about the output attributes, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_threat_profile or list_threat_profiles, though the name suggests a distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_threat_profile_recommendations or search_threat_actors. There is no discussion of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
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, description must fully convey behavior. It states it retrieves data and returns a dictionary, but omits details on error handling, authorization, performance, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Concise at two sentences plus structured Args/Return. Purpose is front-loaded. Minor inefficiency: 'Args:' and 'Return:' section could be considered redundant but clear.
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 low complexity and presence of output schema, description explains return format adequately. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., collection must exist) and potential errors.
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%; description only says 'Collection identifiers' for the 'id' parameter, adding little beyond the schema's type and requirement. Does not specify format or example.
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 specifies verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'Mitre tactics and techniques associated with a threat'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_collection_report which focus on other 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 vs alternatives (e.g., get_collection_report, get_collection_feature_matches). Does not mention 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or prerequisites. 'Comprehensive report' is vague.
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, front-loaded with the action, and uses clear bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
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 (context signal), the description need not detail return structure. However, for a single-param tool, it could hint at the report's content. Adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'domain' is described as 'Domain to analyse', which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). With 0% schema coverage, this is acceptable but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'domain analysis report'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_ip_address_report, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
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 vs. alternatives. With many sibling report tools, explicit usage context (e.g., 'Use for domain analysis; for IPs use get_ip_address_report') is missing.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Report with insights about the URL' without detailing what kind of insights, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure.
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 front-loaded with a clear purpose. The Args/Returns structure is neat, though the Args section largely repeats the schema. No unnecessary words.
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 there is an output schema, the return description is sufficient. However, for a tool with no annotations, the description could be more complete by explaining the scope of the report or usage notes. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 states 'url (required): URL to analyse,' which adds a basic description but lacks format, examples, or constraints. The value added is minimal.
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 comprehensive URL analysis report from Google Threat Intelligence.', which specifies both the action (get) and the resource (URL analysis report). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on domains, files, or IP addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool is preferred over 'get_domain_report' for URLs that are also associated with domains, or any prerequisites.
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 burden. It mentions the default limit and return type but lacks disclosure of read-only nature, error conditions, or authentication needs. The relationship table adds context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. The table is necessary and concise. It is not overly long but includes essential details.
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 there is an output schema, the description adequately covers parameters and return type. However, it is missing details like pagination, error handling, or limits on the number of entities retrieved.
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 coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining ruleset_id, relationship_name (via table), and limit with default. However, it does not elaborate on valid values for relationship_name beyond the table.
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 entities related to a Hunting Ruleset and provides a table of relationships. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_collection, though the target entity is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, nor mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the required hash parameter and that it returns a summary, but does not disclose any potential issues such as size limits, caching behavior, or whether the hash must be from a known file.
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 single-sentence purpose followed by parameter details. The return statement is minimal but acceptable. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 a single parameter and a simple purpose. The description covers the input adequately and states the return type. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs the similar sibling get_file_behavior_report, and it does not describe any error conditions or special cases.
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 description explains the hash parameter, specifying that it is required and listing the accepted types (MD5, SHA1, SHA256). Since the schema property has no description, this adds valuable context. However, it does not specify exact length or format constraints.
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 the resource ('summary of file behavior reports'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_behavior_report (which likely gets a detailed report) and get_file_report. The mention of 'from all the sandboxes' adds specificity.
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 such as get_file_behavior_report or get_file_report. The description assumes the agent knows the distinction from tool names alone, which may not be sufficient.
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, so description carries the burden. It does mention the return is a Markdown-formatted string, but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or whether it is read-only.
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?
Concise with a clear structure: purpose, args, returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the args and returns sections add minimal value.
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 is adequate but lacks details on what commonalities entail. Could be more informative for a one-parameter tool.
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 coverage, description should add meaning. It only states 'collection_id (required): Collection identifier,' which adds no more than the schema. Does not explain format or source.
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 retrieves common characteristics of IoCs in a collection, using specific verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_collection_feature_matches.
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. Does not mention when not to use or provide context for selection among similar 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it is an update operation and returns a success/failure string, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, side effects (e.g., overwriting vs appending), or required permissions.
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 clear Args/Returns sections. No redundant information, though could be slightly more polished.
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 tool's complexity (mutation, 4 required params, no output schema details beyond a string), the description covers the basics but omits error conditions, idempotency, and rate limits. Adequate for simple usage, but incomplete for an autonomous agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: id is collection ID, relationship types are enumerated, iocs format depends on type, operation is add or remove. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 updates IOCs in a collection with add/remove operations. It identifies the specific resource (collection) and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_collection or search_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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'update' implies modification, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools like update_collection_attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it retrieves IOCs and returns a dictionary, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The list of feature types is present but does not cover behavioral aspects.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, but the extensive list of feature types occupies significant space. While structured into sections, the verbosity could be reduced by referencing external documentation. It is informative but not optimally concise.
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 the output schema, the description fails to fully guide on required parameters like entity_type (allowed values implied but not explicit). It explains the concept well but leaves practical gaps. The feature type list adds some completeness, but parameter details are insufficient for an agent to reliably fill all parameters.
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. It provides some parameter details: search_space options, entity_type_plural definition, and descriptors_only description. However, many parameters like feature_type and entity_type lack explicit allowed values or formats beyond the extensive list, leaving gaps.
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 retrieves IOCs matching a specific feature from a collection, with the verb 'retrieves' and specific resource (IOCs from a collection). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_entities_related_to_a_collection' by focusing on feature matching.
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 explains the use case of pivoting from commonalities to IOCs, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with related tools like 'get_collection_commonalities', but the implication 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly describes the tool as retrieving a collection and notes the importance of collection_type, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or other behavioral traits.
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 Args/Returns and is reasonably concise. A minor redundancy in mentioning 'Google Threat Intelligence' twice, but overall efficient.
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 output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, the description lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and could more fully explain when this tool is appropriate.
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. It identifies 'id' as a required Google Threat Intelligence identifier, adding context beyond the schema but lacking format specifics.
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 explicitly states it retrieves collections, which are threat models at Google Threat Intelligence. It lists collection types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle specific 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 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 sibling tools like search_threat_actors or get_domain_report. The description does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read-like operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The function appears safe but is not explicitly stated.
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 fairly concise given the need for a large table. The initial sentence is clear, and the arguments section is structured. The table is necessary and well-formatted, making it easy to scan.
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 all parameters, lists all relationship names, and explains the descriptors_only requirement. The return type is mentioned generically, but output schema exists so fine. Could mention pagination if limit is exceeded, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.
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 each parameter: hash types, relationship_name via exhaustive table, descriptors_only condition, and limit default. This provides rich meaning beyond the schema.
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 file hash. The detailed table of relationship types makes the purpose exhaustive, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_domain, relying on the tool name for distinction.
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 table implies it is used for any file relationship, but does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns a report with detection stats, etc., but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. The name 'get' implies idempotence, but additional context could be helpful.
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?
Two sentences plus parameter description and example. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
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?
Describes input, output summary, and return content. Output schema exists, so no need to detail return structure. Could mention if the file must be previously submitted, but overall sufficient for a single-parameter 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description provides detailed parameter info: accepted hash types (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256) and example formats. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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?
Clearly states it gets a comprehensive file analysis report using a hash, and lists the types of hashes accepted. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_domain_report, but does not explicitly distinguish from get_file_behavior_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as analyse_file or get_file_behavior_report. The description implies it's for a comprehensive report, but lacks explicit when-to-use or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. While 'Get' implies idempotency, the description lacks explicit behavioral context beyond listing attributes.
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 structured with sections (Args, Returns) and bullet points, but it is lengthy and includes many attribute details that could be moved to the output schema. It front-loads the purpose, but the attribute list adds verbosity without earning its place given the existence of an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with one parameter, the description covers the return object comprehensively. However, it omits error conditions, access requirements, or pagination. Given that an output schema exists, the description adds value by explaining the attributes, making it fairly complete.
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 providing a clear explanation of 'profile_id': 'Threat Profile identifier at Google Threat Intelligence'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare title.
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 Threat Profile object' and lists its attributes. It specifies the required parameter (profile_id), differentiating it from siblings like 'list_threat_profiles' which lists all profiles. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_threat_profiles', 'get_threat_profile_associations_timeline', or 'get_threat_profile_recommendations'. The context does not indicate 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.
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 describes the tool as a search returning collections and explains ordering, but it does not mention pagination, error handling, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied 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 well-structured with clear sections but includes some redundancy, such as repeating the default ordering. It is moderately concise but could be tightened to reduce verbosity without losing clarity.
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 3 parameters and an output schema (though not described), the description adequately explains the return value and the relationship to other tools. It covers the essential aspects for a search tool, though it could mention output structure.
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 adds significant value by explaining each parameter: query is a search query, limit has a default of 10, and order_by includes format and defaults. However, the query parameter could benefit from more detail on syntax or format.
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 reports, specifying the platform and that reports are modeled as collections. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_threats', which might cause confusion about when to use each.
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 using 'get_collection_report' to fetch full reports, implying a workflow. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_threats' or 'search_iocs', nor does it specify any prerequisites or prohibitions.
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 but only covers basic behavior (creation, asking for privacy). It omits details like whether the operation is idempotent, effects on existing collections, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two clear paragraphs. The first states purpose and an action prompt, the second details parameters. No redundant sentences, though the 'Ask' instruction could be integrated.
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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description provides adequate context but misses details about asynchronous behavior, error handling, and prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining 'iocs' as a list of IOC types and requiring at least one, and clarifying that 'private' indicates privacy. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
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 the specific verb 'Creates' and the resource 'collection', clearly stating the tool's function. It also instructs to ask for privacy if not specified, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are primarily retrieval or update operations.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_collection_attributes' and offers no context for when creation is 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'updates a collection's attributes' but does not explain whether updates are partial or full, whether existing attributes are overwritten or merged, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The schema allows additionalProperties:true but description lists specific attributes, creating ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (around 80 words) and uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'A dictionary' appears twice) does not detract significantly. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool has 2 parameters, 1 required, no enums, and an output schema (though content unknown), the description covers the basic input and output. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, and whether the attributes parameter supports partial updates, which would enhance completeness for a mutation 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is required and lists the available attributes with their types (name: string, description: string, private: boolean, tags: array of strings, alt_names: array of strings), adding significant meaning beyond the schema which only has generic 'object' type.
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 'updating' and identifies the resource 'collection's attributes', listing the attributes that can be updated (name, description, private, tags, alt_names), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_collection (creation) or update_iocs_in_collection (IOC updates).
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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The purpose is clear from context, but explicit usage guidelines are missing.
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 describes the tool as listing threat profiles and mentions return type, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or what happens when no profiles exist. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of behavioral details.
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 two paragraphs explaining what Threat Profiles are. While front-loaded with the main purpose, it could be more concise by removing explanatory text that is not directly about tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains what Threat Profiles are, when to use them, and their importance. It doesn't detail return field structure, but the output schema compensates.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 'List' and the resource 'Threat Profiles', explaining their purpose as filters for threat intelligence. It distinguishes itself from the 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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'When searching for threats, we must use this tool first... before performing a general search using the search_threats tool.' Also explains that recommendations from Threat Profiles are more relevant, giving clear priority rules.
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 adequately discloses behavior: it returns a list of collection objects, and mentions the need for further tools to extend relationships. It explains ordering syntax and default limits. However, it does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but for a read-only search tool, transparency is sufficient.
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 sections like 'IMPORTANT CONTEXT CLUE' and 'Filtering by Type', making it readable. It front-loads the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating filter info in the Args section), but the length is justified by the detailed guidance it provides. Slight verbosity prevents a 5.
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 four parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: return type, relationship to other tools, parameter syntax. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, result pagination, and critically, when to use this tool vs. the many specialized search siblings. This incomplete contextual mapping leaves the agent underinformed.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It does so effectively: explains 'collection_type' with syntax and available values, 'order_by' with ordering keys and signs, 'query' as required search, and 'limit' as count with default. However, it does not specify query format or maximum limits, but overall compensates well for the missing 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 it searches threats modeled as collections. It distinguishes from 'get_collection_report' by noting that tool fetches full reports. However, it does not differentiate from specialized sibling tools like 'search_threat_actors' or 'search_malware_families', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific threat types.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the 'collection_type' filter based on user request, and offers ordering preferences for latest threats. However, it fails to provide guidance on when to use this broad search tool versus the specialized search tools (e.g., 'search_campaigns', 'search_vulnerabilities'), leaving a gap in decision-making for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that descriptors_only must be True for certain object types, and describes the return type per relationship via the table. However, it does not cover pagination, error handling, or permission 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 sentence. The table adds length but is well-structured and necessary for parameter clarity. It is verbose but not wasteful.
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 output schema exists and the description covers all parameters with a detailed relationship table, it is complete for the tool's complexity. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds crucial meaning. It explains ip_address, relationship_name (with a table of valid values), descriptors_only (boolean constraint), and limit (default 10). The table effectively enriches the relationship_name parameter 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 it retrieves entities related to an IP address, and the detailed table of relationships with descriptions and return types makes the purpose very specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_domain by focusing on IP addresses.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_entities_related_to_* tools). There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a report with insights but lacks details on data freshness, caching, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This under-specifies the tool's behavior.
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 with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args and Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded.
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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essentials. However, it could be improved by mentioning whether the report is live or cached, and any limitations or caveats about the analysis.
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 input schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaningful detail: the parameter is required and accepts IPv4 or IPv6. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition. Adding an example format would elevate the score further.
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 'IP Address analysis report', and the source 'Google Threat Intelligence'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_domain_report' and 'get_url_report' by specifying the IP address focus.
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 indicates the tool is used to get a report for an IP address, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the difference between recommended and added objects via source attribute, default limit, and that it returns identifiers. However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and front-loads the main purpose. It is detailed but not overly verbose; every sentence adds value, though the object type 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?
Given complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers object types and source differentiation. However, it omits pagination, sorting, error cases, and examples, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains profile_id as 'Threat Profile identifier at Google Threat Intelligence' and limit with default value, adding meaning beyond the schema structure.
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 returns a list of objects associated to a given Threat Profile, listing specific object types and distinguishing between recommended and added objects. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_collection_report or search_threats.
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 associated objects for a threat profile, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_collection_feature_matches or get_threat_profile. It only hints at using get_collection_report for 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 bears full burden. It notes events are retrieved 'when available' and are 'super valuable curated information', indicating data quality and availability, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or pagination.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by valuable context and usage recommendation, then parameter and return definitions. Each sentence adds value, no redundancies.
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 the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits details about the structure of returned events beyond mentioning 'event_category', and does not specify if the list can be empty or other fields. For an AI agent, this could leave ambiguity about the return format.
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 define the parameter. It states 'id (required): Collection identifier', which is basic but sufficient. No example or formatting hints are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves timeline events from a given collection, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_collection_feature_matches' and 'get_threat_profile_associations_timeline' by focusing on collection-specific curated timeline data.
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 recommends fetching this information 'for campaigns and threat actors always', providing clear positive use-case guidance, though it does not discuss when not to use it or compare to alternatives explicitly.
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 critical behavior: the file will be shared with the community (public disclosure). This is a key transparency point. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the file already exists.
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 relatively concise with an Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined 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 no output schema, the description mentions returns 'The analysis report' but is vague about its format. For a simple upload tool, this may be sufficient, but more detail on the report structure would enhance completeness.
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 one parameter (file_path) with no description. The description adds 'Use absolute path', providing guidance beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.
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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are read-only (e.g., get_file_report) by indicating this tool performs an upload.
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?
Usage context is implied by describing the upload action, but no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_report for existing analyses). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by listing available relationships and return types, and notes the required descriptors_only constraint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, pagination behavior, or rate limits.
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 long due to the necessary relationship table. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the table is somewhat repetitive. While informative, it could be more concise without losing essential detail.
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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers parameter semantics, usage constraint, and relationship options. Lacks mention of pagination or maximum limit, but is generally complete for a complex 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains domain and relationship_name through the extensive table, clarifies descriptors_only with a usage constraint, and notes limit defaults to 10. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement 'Retrieve entities related to the given domain.' and distinguishes from siblings like get_entities_related_to_a_file by focusing on domain objects.
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 guidance on when descriptors_only must be True ('Must be True when the target object type is one of file, domain, url, ip_address or collection') and specifies a default limit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to choose this over similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It explains that the tool returns a list of collections (threats) and details ordering behavior. However, it omits information on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. 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 well-structured with an Args section. It is concise with no redundant sentences, delivering necessary information efficiently. 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the usage flow with get_collection_report. However, it could be more complete by mentioning pagination or result limits beyond the default.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains query is required, limit default is 10, and order_by defaults to 'relevance-' with accepted values (relevance, creation_date) and sign usage (+/-). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though the query format itself is not detailed.
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 vulnerabilities (CVEs) in the Google Threat Intelligence platform. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns collections that can be used with get_collection_report, differentiating from search_threats and other 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?
Provides guidance on using get_collection_report after obtaining collections, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_iocs or search_threats. More explicit when-not-to-use guidance would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the basic return behavior (list of dicts or error) and the rule types filter, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 (main action, note on rule_types, example, args, returns). Each sentence adds value; the note and example are particularly helpful. No unnecessary fluff.
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?
The tool has three parameters (one required) and an output schema. The description explains the return format (list of dicts with rule and metadata or error) and covers all input semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It provides meaningful context for each parameter: collection_id (ID of collection), top_n (number of top community rules from each category, default 4), and rule_types (list of types with possible values and an example). This adds significant value beyond the schema's raw types 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 the tool retrieves 'top N community rules and all curated hunting rules for a specific collection.' It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('rules for a collection'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection_report or get_hunting_ruleset.
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. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like get_hunting_ruleset, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a read operation (get), lists important attributes of the returned object, and mentions the rules content. It does not cover error scenarios or permissions, but for a simple retrieve, it is sufficiently transparent.
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 and includes a clear list of object attributes. Though slightly verbose, each sentence adds value and 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?
An output schema exists, but the description still explains return values and the parameter. It is complete for a simple retrieve tool, though it could mention error handling or permission requirements.
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%, yet the description adds meaning by describing the required parameter as 'Hunting ruleset identifier' and details the output object's attributes, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_entities_related_to_a_hunting_ruleset by focusing on the ruleset object itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a specific ruleset by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search tools or get_entities_related_to_a_hunting_ruleset. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or potential failures. However, it does describe the parameter behavior (ID pattern), which is helpful.
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?
Multiple sentences but no fluff. Structure is clear: main sentence, explanatory paragraph, then Args/Returns. Could be slightly tighter but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. It explains the parameter well and gives contextual info about obtaining the ID. Missing error conditions or performance notes, but adequate for a retrieval tool.
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 has 0% description coverage but the description adds the ID pattern (file hash + sandbox name) and how to derive it, adding significant meaning 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 it retrieves a report for a file behaviour ID. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_report and get_entities_related_to_a_file by specifying the unique input and how to obtain it.
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?
It explains how to get the file behaviour identifier via get_entities_related_to_a_file and the ID pattern, providing strong context for when to use this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance 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 exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains ordering behavior and defaults but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or return format details. Adequate for a search tool but could be more 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 moderately concise with clear sections: main purpose, argument details, and return type. No unnecessary sentences, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant default mention in both prose and args.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the return description is sufficient. The description covers the search functionality, ordering, limit, and post-usage steps. Missing pagination details or behavior when results exceed limit, but overall adequate for the complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates thoroughly. It explains the query parameter, limit default, and order_by values ('relevance', 'creation_date') along with usage of '+' and '-' for sorting direction, which the schema omits.
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 the Google Threat Intelligence platform, explains that threat actors are modeled as collections, and distinguishes from siblings by noting that results can be processed further with get_collection_report. The verb 'search' is specific, and the resource is well-defined.
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 says to use get_collection_report after obtaining collections, providing sequential guidance. However, it does not compare with sibling search tools like search_threats or search_malware_families, so some ambiguity remains on when to use this specific tool.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the search and ordering syntax (e.g., no mention of read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or side effects). The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety or mutability details.
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 purpose, follow-up context, parameter details, and return type. It is slightly verbose in the ordering explanation but earns its place. The front-loading is good.
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 presence of an output schema, the description's return type ('List of collections, aka threats') is sufficient. It covers the tool's operation, parameters, and relationship to other tools thoroughly. No major gaps are apparent.
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 adds significant meaning. It explains the 'query' parameter as required, 'limit' with default 10, and 'order_by' with valid values ('relevance', 'creation_date') and syntax (+/- for ascending/descending). This goes well beyond the schema's type and default information.
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 purpose: 'Search threat campaigns in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It also explains that campaigns are modeled as collections and directs users to subsequent tools like get_collection_report. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_threats or search_threat_actors.
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 context: it tells users to use this tool to search for threat campaigns (collections) and then mentions get_collection_report as a follow-up. It also explains ordering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives among the many sibling search tools.
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, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains pagination behavior, the 60-second timeout, tokenization, special character escaping, and sanitization. While it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only, the search context and detail imply safe operation. The disclosure of performance pitfalls enhances transparency.
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 very long and includes extensive examples, a full field list, and many considerations. While well-structured with headings and bullet points, it could be more concise without losing essential information. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the field list separately when already in query examples).
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers query syntax, field meanings, pagination, performance, and edge cases. It lacks explicit details about the response structure (only mentions 'dictionary with documents and metadata'), but the examples and pagination description partially compensate.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It richly documents all parameters: query (required, Lucene syntax), size (max 25, default 10), since/until (RFC3339 with Z), page (pagination token), truncate (character limit), sanitize (default true). It also lists usable fields and their meanings, far exceeding schema titles.
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 immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_campaigns or get_threat_profile, which focus on specific entity types, by indicating it covers surface, deep, and dark web documents broadly.
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 extensive guidance on query construction, filtering by type and threat, pagination, date formatting, performance limits, and noise reduction. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or alternative search tools like search_threat_reports, leaving a minor gap.
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 the transparency burden. It explains that malware families are collections and returns a list of collections. It also covers default behavior for parameters. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leading to a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose, then provides context about collections, followed by parameter details, and ends with return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 presence of an output schema and numerous siblings, the description is complete. It specifies the return type as a list of collections and links to a related tool for further actions, covering the essential context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value. It explains each parameter: query (search query), limit (limit number, default 10), and order_by (sorting with +/- prefix, default 'relevance-'). This is far beyond the bare schema, which only provides types 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search malware families in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It further explains that malware families are collections and directs users to a related tool for full reports, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like search_threats.
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 context, explaining that results are collections and suggesting a follow-up tool (get_collection_report). It also details sorting options and defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like search_threats or search_campaigns, which would improve guidance.
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, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it explains the effect of the 'descriptors_only' parameter and the special requirement for 'attack_techniques' relationship. However, it omits details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication, which is acceptable 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?
The description is well-organized with a table and clear sections, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. Slight improvement could be made by trimming redundant phrasing.
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 tool's complexity (multiple relationships, special constraints) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: required and optional parameters, behavior of each, and the constraint for attack_techniques. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'id' as collection identifier, 'relationship_name' with a table of valid values, 'limit' with default, and 'descriptors_only' with its behavior and constraint for attack_techniques.
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 entities related to a collection given an ID and relationship name. It includes a comprehensive table of available relationships, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are specific to other object 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?
The description provides clear usage context: it explains the required parameters and the available relationships. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other similar 'get_entities_related_to_*' tools, though the name makes it obvious for collections.
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, the description carries the burden. It discloses the input parameters and the return type (list of entities). It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or explicit read-only nature, but the tool name and description imply a safe read operation. Overall, it is fairly transparent.
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 first sentence stating purpose, followed by a helpful table, then parameter explanations. The table is somewhat long but provides necessary details. It is appropriately sized given the complexity of relationships.
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?
Considering the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, all parameters, a comprehensive list of relationship types, and return type. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'url' as the URL to analyse, 'relationship_name' via a detailed table, 'descriptors_only' with a rule for when it must be True, and 'limit' with default. This adds significant 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 explicitly states the purpose: 'Retrieve entities related to the the given URL.' It also lists specific relationship types via a table, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other entity types (e.g., domains, files).
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 tool name and description make it clear that it is for URLs. The table of relationships guides which relationship_name to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_entities_related_to_a_domain, relying on the name for differentiation.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the query syntax, default behavior (limit 10, order_by default), and constraints (entity modifier once). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but those are likely global. The description is transparent about the search 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 well-structured with a clear introduction, table, notes, and parameter explanations. While lengthy, the table and links are valuable. It is front-loaded with purpose. A slightly shorter version could exist, but it earns its 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?
Given the schema richness (3 params, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers query syntax, modifiers, entity-specific ordering, constraints, and defaults. No gaps are apparent for using the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter meaningfully: 'query' as search query, 'limit' with default 10, 'order_by' with default and a full table of supported values per entity type. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose: 'Search Indicators of Compromise (IOC) in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It specifies the resource (IOCs) and differentiates from sibling tools like search_threats by focusing on IOC-specific search modifiers and 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?
The description provides detailed guidance on syntax, entity types, supported orders, and modifier constraints, including explicit notes about the `entity` modifier being used once. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus sibling search tools, which would elevate 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?
With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it searches and returns collections, with details on ordering and defaults. It does not mention rate limits or errors, but for a search tool this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (around 100 words) and well-structured with sections for purpose, modeling, ordering explanation, and Args/Returns. Every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with 3 parameters, the description covers what it does, how to use parameters, and the return type. It lacks mention of pagination, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
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?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema (0% coverage). It explains the query parameter required, limit default, order_by options with values and sorting syntax, vastly improving usability.
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 software toolkits (collections) in Google Threat Intelligence. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type and linking to get_collection_report for further 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 guidance on when to use (for searching software toolkits) and what to do next (use get_collection_report). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context implies differentiation from other search tools listed as siblings.
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-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jmaciasc-google/gti-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jmaciasc-google/gti-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/jmaciasc-google/gti-mcp-server'

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