Retrieve available MISP galaxies, including MITRE ATT&CK, threat actors, malware families, and tools. Filter results by name or namespace for targeted threat intelligence.
List available MISP galaxies (MITRE ATT&CK, threat actors, malware families, tools, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter galaxies by name or type | |
| namespace | No | Filter by namespace (e.g., mitre-attack-pattern, mitre-intrusion-set, mitre-malware) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action (list) without any details on authentication requirements, pagination, access control, or return format. For a simple read operation, the description lacks transparency about potential limitations or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. No superfluous words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could improve by briefly mentioning what the output contains (e.g., list of galaxy names) or any access limitations, but is adequate 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already clearly defines both parameters (search, namespace) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'MISP galaxies' with specific examples like MITRE ATT&CK, threat actors, malware families, tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools like misp_get_galaxy (retrieves a specific galaxy) and misp_search_galaxy_clusters (searches clusters within a galaxy).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the purpose implies usage for listing available galaxies, there is no comparison to similar tools like misp_get_galaxy or misp_search_galaxy_clusters. The description leaves 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.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lidless-labs/misp-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server