misp-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions behavioral aspects (reporting sightings with specific types), but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's a read/write operation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Report a sighting of an IOC') and includes key behavioral context (the three sighting types). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral context but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover error handling, response format, or integration with sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'type' enum values in more detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose: 'Report a sighting of an IOC' with specific actions (confirms observation, marks as false positive, or sets expiration). It distinguishes from siblings like misp_add_attribute (adds attributes) or misp_search_attributes (searches attributes) by focusing on reporting sightings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for reporting IOC sightings, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing attribute/event) or compare with siblings like misp_tag_event for marking status. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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