cortex-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'submit for analysis' implies a potentially long-running or asynchronous operation, the description doesn't mention whether this starts a job, returns immediately, requires follow-up actions, or has rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters including security classifications (TLP/PAP), this is inadequate behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero waste.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters including security protocols (TLP/PAP), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'analysis' entails, what kind of results to expect, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools like 'cortex_get_job_report' and 'cortex_wait_and_get_report'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how analyzerId relates to dataType) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('submit an observable') and target ('to a specific analyzer for analysis'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cortex_run_analyzer_by_name' which appears to serve a similar purpose with different parameterization.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cortex_run_analyzer_by_name' or 'cortex_analyze_observable'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions that would help an agent select between these similar analysis tools.

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