opencti-mcp

search_sector

Identify relevant sectors and industries by keyword. Search threat intelligence data for sector names like Energy, Healthcare, or Finance to locate matching entries.

Instructions

Search for sectors/industries (e.g., 'Energy', 'Healthcare', 'Finance').

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_sector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default: 10, max: 50)
`query`	Yes	Sector 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which implies read-only retrieval, but it does not state return shape, matching behavior, pagination semantics, or whether results are exact or partial matches.

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, focused sentence with no filler, and the examples earn their place by clarifying what counts as a sector/industry.

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 search tool, the core details are present, but with no output schema and no behavioral disclosure, an agent gets no indication of result structure, empty-result behavior, or additional search semantics beyond the schema-provided limit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds example values for the query parameter, which is helpful, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for limit.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for sectors/industries', with concrete examples ('Energy', 'Healthcare', 'Finance'). This makes the tool's object clear and distinguishes it from the many sibling search_* tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when looking up a sector or industry by keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, though sibling names make the domain reasonably clear.

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