Tenable Identity Exposure MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is slight overlap among tie_deviances, tie_deviances_by_checker, and tie_deviances_by_directory. However, descriptions clarify that they differ by date filtering and scoping, so ambiguity is minimal.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use the consistent 'tie_' prefix and follow snake_case naming. Naming patterns are predictable: nouns for entity listings (tie_alerts, tie_attacks) and verb_noun for search actions (tie_search_ad_objects). No mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools is well-scoped for the Tenable Identity Exposure domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (alerts, attacks, deviances, profiles, search, topology) without unnecessary duplication or missing core functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the API surface: CRUD via tie_resource_action, specific queries for alerts, attacks, deviances, scores, topology, and search. The tie_recent_activity tool fills a gap by merging IoE and IoA timelines. No obvious missing operations.
Average 4/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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 MIT License.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a read operation (list) and explains basic parameter behavior. However, it omits details like pagination limits, performance implications, or access control 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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the main action. Minor improvement possible by removing redundancy in the docstring format.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description only partially covers parameters and does not describe the return format or behavior (e.g., result count, error handling).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter's purpose (profile_id, page, per_page, archived) and defaults, but lacks details like allowed ranges or the effect of null for archived.
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 'List alerts for a security profile', providing a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the name and description make the purpose 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?
The description lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tie_attacks, tie_scores). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention that create/update/delete are destructive, required permissions, or error handling. The example for delete lacks warning, and the impact of invalid resource names is omitted.
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, well-structured with Args and Examples sections, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy.
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 and multiple resource/action combinations, the description covers parameter usage thoroughly but lacks details on return format, error handling, and pagination specifics. It is adequate but incomplete for a generic CRUD tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter (resource, action, id, body, params) with examples. It clarifies usage beyond the schema's type definitions, though the format for params is not fully detailed.
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 performs CRUD operations on TIE resources, with examples listing specific resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are resource-specific, but does not explicitly highlight its generic nature.
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 siblings like tie_alerts or tie_attacks. The description provides examples but does not indicate prerequisites, context, or alternatives for specific resource operations.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, stating it is read-only would be helpful but is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more compact by omitting redundant wording in the parameter lines.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or result fields. Given that the tool has pagination parameters (page, per_page), this omission reduces 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides parameter descriptions in the 'Args' block (e.g., 'Search string to match against AD object names/attributes'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more specific about what attributes are searched.
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: 'Search Active Directory objects (users, computers, groups, OUs) by name or attribute.' It explicitly lists the object types, which distinguishes it from other tie_ tools that deal with events, alerts, etc.
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 say when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools are all different (alerts, attacks, etc.), so the purpose implies usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic function and parameters, omitting critical details like authentication, error handling, rate limits, and side effects. This is insufficient for a generic API call tool.
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, using a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. 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 the 13 sibling tools for specific endpoints, the description lacks guidance on when to use this generic tool. It explains the return value (parsed JSON) but omits potential errors or pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to all four parameters (method, path, params, body) with clear explanations and examples, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it could provide more detail on path formatting.
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: making direct HTTP calls to any Tenable Identity Exposure API endpoint. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools which target specific endpoints.
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 any endpoint but does not explicitly guide when to use this generic tool versus the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., tie_alerts, tie_attacks). No exclusions or alternatives are 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?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what authentication is required, or any rate limits. It lacks information about pagination, result size limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 brief opening line and a bulleted list of arguments. It is largely efficient, though some examples (e.g., 'e.g. "2026-07-01T00:00:00.000Z"') add length without clutter. Could be slightly more compressed but still 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers input semantics well but omits the return value or result structure. An agent invoking this tool would know what to provide but not what to expect in response, which is a notable gap.
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 must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: directory_ids references resource='directories', date_start/end with ISO 8601 examples, profile_id with default, expression and order with defaults and example values. 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 clearly states 'Search AD security events within a date range', which is a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AD security events'). It distinguishes from siblings like tie_alerts or tie_search_ad_objects by specifying security events.
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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., tie_search_ad_objects) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the date range and security events focus, but no exclusions or alternatives 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions a default parameter, but lacks details on authentication, performance impact, or response structure. For a read-only tool, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and clearly structured with the main sentence followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded well, though the parameter description could be integrated more seamlessly.
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, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential action and return type. It does not specify the exact format of the topology data, but this is acceptable without an output schema.
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 parameter profile_id is explained as 'Security profile id (default 1)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's default value. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could further elaborate on how the profile affects results.
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 Active Directory topology including domains, forests, and trust relationships. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_catalog or tie_search_ad_objects.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or situations where other tools might be more 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, and the description does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief summary, an example, and a parameter list. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined without the example.
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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but the purpose is well-defined.
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 provides detailed explanations for all 10 parameters, including types, defaults, and usage context, adding 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 clearly states the tool lists IoA attack instances for a resource within a profile, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover alerts, catalog, deviances, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that scoping to a resource is required and provides an example. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear for a resource-specific list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (list of {directoryId, score}), explains that higher is better, and clarifies that scores reflect 'outstanding IoE deviances.' Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It does not detail side effects or auth needs, but for a read operation this is acceptable.
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 succinct: two sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and parameter meaning. It lacks details on potential errors or how 'IoE deviances' relate, but overall it is sufficient for use.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'Security profile id (default 1).' This adds meaning beyond the type and default. However, it does not elaborate on how to find or interpret profile IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get per-directory security scores for a profile.' It specifies the resource (per-directory security scores) and the action (get). The output format is described, and it is distinct from sibling tools which cover alerts, attacks, catalog, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.
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 discloses that the tool returns 'full detail', has 'no date filter', and that the 'verbose' parameter controls whether 'giant attribute values' are dropped. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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: a single-line summary followed by parameter details in a clean list. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks information about return values, pagination behavior (beyond page numbers), error handling, or prerequisites. Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning for each parameter: it explains that infrastructure_id and directory_id reference other resources, defines page and per_page as pagination parameters, and details the effect of verbose. This compensates well 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 the verb 'List', the resource 'IoE deviances', and the scope 'for a specific directory'. It also adds 'full detail, no date filter' which distinguishes it from potential siblings that might filter by date or return less detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific directory ID, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like tie_deviances or tie_deviances_by_checker. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only retrieval of identity, roles, and permissions based on the API key. No annotations exist, but the description adequately covers the non-destructive behavior. No additional behavioral details (e.g., caching, latency) are given.
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?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully explains its purpose and output. No additional details are necessary for an agent to use it 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 zero parameters, the description does not need to explain any. However, it adds value by describing what the tool returns (identity, roles, permissions) beyond the empty input schema, justifying a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('current user's identity, roles, and permissions'), and the context ('from the API key'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tie_alerts and tie_attacks by focusing on user identity.
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?
While the description implies that the tool should be used to retrieve the current user's information, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions is provided.
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 full burden. It details behavior: server-side time filtering, default window of last 24h, pagination, verbose flag, and handling of defaults. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a read query, the provided 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 well-structured with a summary line, explanatory text, then a detailed arg list. It is somewhat long (10+ lines) but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the organization compensates.
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 11 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all parameters and behavior, but it lacks any indication of the return format (e.g., list of deviances, count, fields). For a query tool, this is a gap. It references related endpoints, which helps, but the output structure is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains all 11 parameters with defaults, constraints (e.g., hours ignored if date_start given), and cross-references (e.g., tie_profiles for profile_id). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default info.
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 finds AD objects with IoE deviances for a checker within a time window, distinguishing itself from siblings by noting it's the time-filterable version. The verb 'Find' and the resource 'IoE deviances' are specific, and the differentiation from tie_deviances_by_checker is clear.
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 when to use this tool: for queries with a time window using hours or explicit dates, and defaults to last 24h. It also references related tools like tie_profiles for listing profiles and the reasons endpoint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use alternatives like tie_deviances_by_checker (non-time-filterable), though it implies it.
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 discloses that results are merged and sorted newest-first, timestamps are UTC, alerts are enriched, and truncation is reported. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but given the retrieval nature, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then detailed explanation, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's complex behavior (merging two sources, enrichment, truncation). It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the output structure, but it is adequate for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. Each parameter is explained with default values, behavior details (e.g., max_items truncation, verbose slimming), and context (profile_id defaults to 1, directory_ids restrict scope). This fully compensates 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 it provides a unified recent-activity timeline of IoE alerts and IoA attacks. It answers specific user questions and distinguishes from sibling tools like tie_alerts and tie_attacks by being a merged view.
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 explains when to use this tool (for recent activity, merging both IoE and IoA). It implies that for separate feeds, tie_alerts or tie_attacks would be more appropriate, but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a read-only list operation, which is safe. Without annotations, it adds valuable context about profile scoping. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or that authentication is required, but the verb 'list' implies no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, both substantive. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds critical information: what the tool lists and why it's important for other tools.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description indicates the tool returns id and name, which is sufficient for a list tool. It also provides the crucial context about profile scoping, making the tool's purpose and usage complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 lists security profiles with id and name. It also explains the relevance of profiles for scoping IoE/IoA data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on or with profiles.
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?
It explains that the console has a selected profile not exposed by the API, and that users must explicitly pass the profile_id to other tools. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to obtain profile IDs) and implicit guidance on not to assume a default profile.
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 correctly implies a safe read operation and lists resources, but lacks details on rate limits or caching. However, output schema covers return format, so overall adequate.
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: first states purpose, second gives usage advice. No wasted words.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's functionality and when to use it.
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?
No parameters exist, and the description correctly states it lists all resources. No additional meaning needed.
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 lists all available Tenable Identity Exposure API resources and their paths, differentiating it from sibling tools that operate on specific resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first before using other tools, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains empty expression returns all, verbose behavior, and API modeling. Missing details on side effects, rate limits, or auth, but transparent enough.
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?
Well-structured: one-line summary, alternative usage, then args. Every sentence adds value, no 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 6 params, no output schema, and sibling tools, description covers all parameters and usage context completely.
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 coverage, description adds full semantics: checker_id linked to tie_resource_action, profile_id default, page 1-based, per_page 50, expression as filter object, verbose for token saving. Greatly augments 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 lists IoE deviances for a given checker within a profile, with full detail and no date filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tie_deviances and tie_recent_activity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'For a time-bounded view use tie_deviances(hours=...) or tie_recent_activity instead.' Also explains the POST nature and optional expression filter.
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

tenable-identity-exposure-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![tenable-identity-exposure-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/knethteo/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/knethteo/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tenable-identity-exposure-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/knethteo/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/knethteo/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp)

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/knethteo/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp'

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