opencti-mcp

search_campaign

Search for threat campaigns by name or keyword and retrieve matching campaign details from OpenCTI. Supports threat intelligence analysis.

Instructions

Search for threat campaigns by name or keyword.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default: 10, max: 50)
`query`	Yes	Campaign name or keyword

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only conveys that this is a search operation; it does not describe return format, result behavior, pagination, or any other operational traits. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool and wastes no words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the input and the resource. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what kind of result is returned, which leaves some gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool meets a need.

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%, so the schema already documents both query and limit. The phrase 'by name or keyword' essentially restates the schema's query description and adds no new semantic meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('threat campaigns'), plus the input method ('by name or keyword'). It clearly differentiates from sibling search tools for other entity types, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this tool when you need to find threat campaigns by name or keyword. It does not list exclusions or explicitly compare against search_threat_actor, search_malware, etc., but the resource-specific phrasing gives sufficient guidance for this simple case.

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