wazuh-mcp

Search Wazuh alerts

wazuh_search_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Wazuh security alerts by severity, MITRE ID, agent, IP, or text over a custom time window, returning compact or full alert details.

Instructions

Search security alerts in the Wazuh Indexer over a time window. This is the main tool for questions like 'show me critical alerts in the last hour', 'what fired on server-db-01 yesterday', 'find SSH brute force attempts', or 'alerts matching MITRE T1110'. Returns a compact projection of each alert by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	Window end. Defaults to now.
`text`	No	Lucene query over alert text, e.g. 'failed password', 'rule.description:sudo', or 'data.srcport:22 AND NOT agent.id:000'.
`limit`	No	Max alerts to return.
`start`	No	Window start: relative like '24h', '7d', '30m', or ISO-8601 like '2026-08-01T00:00:00Z'. Defaults to 24 hours ago.
`offset`	No	Paging offset.
`src_ip`	No	Restrict to these source IPs.
`rule_id`	No	Restrict to these rule IDs.
`agent_id`	No	Restrict to these agent IDs.
`mitre_id`	No	MITRE technique IDs, e.g. ['T1110'].
`severity`	No	Severity band by rule level: critical=15+, high=12-14, medium=7-11, low=4-6, info=0-3.
`max_level`	No	Maximum rule.level, inclusive.
`min_level`	No	Minimum rule.level, inclusive.
`agent_name`	No	Restrict to these agent names (exact).
`rule_group`	No	Restrict to these rule groups, e.g. 'authentication_failed', 'web', 'syscheck', 'sca', 'vulnerability-detector'.
`full_documents`	No	Return every field of each alert instead of the compact projection. Much larger output; use for deep inspection of a handful of alerts.
`sort_ascending`	No	Oldest first instead of newest first.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that a compact projection is returned by default. It could add more about output size implications with full_documents, but the schema and annotations already provide substantial coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by relevant examples. There is no filler, redundancy, or over-explanation, making it appropriately sized for the tool.

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 rich schema covering all 16 parameters, an output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It identifies the primary use, default projection, and typical query intents, with no required parameters or nested objects adding hidden complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions; the example questions give only indirect mapping to parameters like severity, agent_name, text, and mitre_id.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Search security alerts in the Wazuh Indexer over a time window.' It provides concrete example questions that clarify intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby sibling tools like alert_stats, alert_timeline, or indexer_query, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 clearly positions itself as the main tool for time-window alert searches and gives representative question types. It does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools for aggregations, timelines, or raw indexer queries, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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