opencti-mcp

get_recent_indicators

Retrieve indicators of compromise (IOCs) added to OpenCTI within a specified time window. Filter by number of days and limit results for efficient threat intelligence.

Instructions

Get recently added indicators (IOCs) from the last N days.

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_recent_indicators"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Number of days to look back (default: 7, max: 90)
`limit`	No	Max results (default: 20, max: 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the core behavior (retrieving IOCs added within the last N days) but does not clarify what 'recently added' means (e.g., first-seen vs. added-to-platform), whether results are ordered, paginated, or what the return structure looks like. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description, combined with a fully documented schema, gives an agent the basic input contract. However, with no output schema or annotation, it lacks detail about the shape of the returned indicator objects, ordering, or the precise recency criterion, so it is not fully complete for nuanced selection.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with defaults and maximums. The description's 'last N days' aligns with the 'days' parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('recently added indicators (IOCs)') with a time bound ('last N days'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling lookup/search tools, so it misses the top tier.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like search_threat_intel, lookup_ioc, or search_observable. The description merely states what the tool does, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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