opencti-mcp

search_incident

Query security incidents by name or keyword to locate relevant threat intelligence. Retrieve incident details to support analysis and response.

Instructions

Search for security incidents.

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_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search' without stating whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination is applied, or what query semantics are used. The verb implies a read operation, but no concrete behavior is disclosed beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise and easy to parse, though it does not add much beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the tool being relatively simple, the description lacks essential context: no explanation of what the query matches, how results are returned, what the default behavior is, or how to handle the absence of results. With no output schema or annotations, an agent would need more information to correctly interpret the search results.

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%, and both parameters (query, limit) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('security incidents'), which clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_malware or search_threat_actor. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an incident or what fields are searched, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor any mention of exclusions or preferred alternatives. The description simply states the action without giving an agent enough context to choose it over search_threat_intel or other incident-related searches.

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