Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Exploit Intel Platform MCP Server

Exploit Intel Platform MCP Server

by rhkiswani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

list_authors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank exploit authors by exploit count to identify top security researchers. Returns researcher handles and exploit counts.

Instructions

List exploit authors/researchers ranked by exploit count. Returns the top security researchers with their exploit counts and handles. Use this when asked 'who are the top exploit authors?' or 'who writes the most exploits?'

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_authors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
per_pageNoResults per page (1-50, default: 25)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond what is already in structured data, such as the rank and return fields.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence provides distinct value: first defines the operation, second gives usage examples. 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?

Given the simple tool (list with pagination), annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description covers purpose, ranking, and expected output fields. It could mention default sort order or pagination behavior, but overall adequate.

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 100% with clear descriptions for page and per_page. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the results. Baseline 3 applies.

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 exploit authors/researchers ranked by exploit count, with a specific format: returns top researchers with counts and handles. It distinguishes from siblings like get_author (specific author) and search_exploits.

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 provides example queries ('who are the top exploit authors?', 'who writes the most exploits?'), indicating when to use. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools