opencti-mcp

get_network_status

Monitor network health and obtain adaptive configuration recommendations. View P50/P95/P99 latency, success rates, circuit breaker state, and suggested timeout/retry settings.

Instructions

Get network health metrics and adaptive configuration recommendations. Shows latency statistics (P50/P95/P99), success rates, circuit breaker state, and recommended timeout/retry settings based on observed network conditions.

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": "get_network_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool surfaces: latency percentiles, success rates, circuit breaker state, and recommended timeout/retry settings. The verbs 'Get' and 'Shows' strongly imply a non-mutating read operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect free or data-freshness limits.

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 compact sentences. First sentence gives the high-level purpose; second adds specific deliverable metrics. No fluff, no redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema status tool, the description is substantially complete: it names the main categories of returned data. It could add a note on date/freshness scope or how recommendations are derived, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need parameter guidance, and it presents all the information necessary to invoke the tool without arguments.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get network health metrics and adaptive configuration recommendations.' It also enumerates concrete outputs (latency P50/P95/P99, success rates, circuit breaker state) that distinguish it from broader siblings like get_health or cache-focused get_cache_stats.

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 network health metrics and adaptive configuration recommendations are needed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_health. No when-not guidance is provided.

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