opencti-mcp

search_location

Search for countries, regions, or cities by name to retrieve location data for threat intelligence analysis. Returns matching locations from OpenCTI.

Instructions

Search for locations (countries, regions, cities).

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_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it 'searches' for locations but does not disclose what results look like, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is not misleading, but it is thin.

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 repetition. The parenthetical examples add useful semantic context without bloating the text, though slightly more detail could have been included without harming conciseness.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core purpose and the schema covers parameter details. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance relative to sibling search tools, an agent is left without information about result shape or when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit' adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the examples in the purpose clause, but it does not need to compensate because the schema is sufficient.

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 a specific resource ('locations'), further clarified with examples ('countries, regions, cities'). This clearly distinguishes it from the more generic search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any specific sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor are any exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, not stated.

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