wazuh-mcp

Alert volume over time

wazuh_alert_timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate time-based alert counts to identify trends and spikes, with optional breakdown by severity or agent.

Instructions

Bucket alert counts into time intervals to show trend and spikes — 'was there a spike overnight', 'alert volume per hour this week'. Optionally splits each interval by a field such as severity or agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	Window end. Defaults to now.
`text`	No
`start`	No	Window start. Defaults to 24h ago.
`agent_id`	No
`interval`	No	Bucket size such as '5m', '1h', '1d'. Chosen automatically from the window length when omitted.
`severity`	No
`split_by`	No	Optional field to break each bucket down by, e.g. 'rule.level'.
`min_level`	No
`split_top`	No
`rule_group`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description clearly frames it as a read-only aggregation query. It does not describe output format, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward read nature make the behavior 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 one concise sentence with useful examples and no filler. It efficiently communicates the core behavior and the optional split capability.

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?

The description provides enough context for a straightforward read-only aggregation tool, and the schema supplies defaults and constraints. It does not explain every filter parameter, but the overall purpose and usage context are clear.

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?

Only 4 of 10 parameters have schema descriptions (end, start, interval, split_by), and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. Several parameters such as min_level, split_top, severity, and rule_group rely only on their names for meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear, specific purpose: bucketing alert counts by time to show trends and spikes. Includes concrete example use cases and notes the optional split-by capability.

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 implies temporal analysis use cases but does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as wazuh_search_alerts or wazuh_alert_stats. It lacks guidance on when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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