Intel Threadlinqs MCP

Similar Threats

get_similar_threats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find threats similar to a given threat ID, explaining each match with per-channel scores, dominant signals, shared techniques, IOCs, CVEs, and quality flags.

Instructions

Threats similar to a given threat, with the EVIDENCE behind each link: per-channel score breakdown, which signal dominates, the concrete shared techniques / IOCs / CVEs, and quality flags for stale or high-confidence-low-evidence links. Use explain_correlation for a full decomposition of one specific pair.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Source threat ID (e.g. TL-2026-0042)
`limit`	No	Max results (default 10, max 20 — the handler caps here).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`count`	No
`counts`	No
`similar`	No
`source_threat_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv8.2.1Aug 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Max results (default 10, max 50)"New value: +"Max results (default 10, max 20 — the handler caps here)."

addedOutput schema / properties / counts

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "has_more": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "limit": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "matched": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "matched_is_floor": {
+      "description": "True when the source queries saturated, so `matched` under-counts.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "returned": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv8.1.1Aug 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Source threat ID (e.g. TL-2026-0042)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / threat_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Source threat ID (e.g. TL-2026-0042)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "threat_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "dominance": {},
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Neighbour threat ID — pass to get_threat.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "is_high_conf_low_signal": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "is_stale": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "score_breakdown": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "properties": {},
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "shared_cves": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "shared_iocs": {
+            "items": {},
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "shared_techniques": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "signal_count": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "similarity_score": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "similar": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source_threat_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing return behavior: evidence per link, score breakdown, dominant signal, shared indicators, and quality flags for stale or high-confidence-low-evidence links. This gives an agent useful expectations beyond the schema.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states what the tool returns and the key evidence qualities; the second routes to the related correlation tool. No filler or repeated annotation content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, idempotent, two-parameter tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and result shape. It also tells the agent where to go for the deeper follow-up task, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, including an example ID and the limit cap. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but because coverage is 100%, the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (threats similar to a given threat) and explains what the results contain: evidence, per-channel score breakdown, dominant signal, shared techniques/IOCs/CVEs, and quality flags. It also names explain_correlation as a related but distinct tool, which prevents confusion with sibling tools such as get_flow_similar_threats.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies this tool is for finding and comparing multiple similar threats, and explicitly says to use explain_correlation when you need a full decomposition of one specific pair. It does not enumerate every sibling alternative or say when not to use it, but the primary alternative is given.

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

Deploy Server