Skip to main content
Glama
ukkugh

tenable-identity-exposure-mcp

by ukkugh

tie_resource_action

Perform CRUD operations on Tenable Identity Exposure resources like directories, attacks, and users. List, get, create, update, or delete security data via the TIE API.

Instructions

Perform CRUD operations on a TIE resource.

Args: resource: Resource name from tie_catalog (e.g. "directories", "attacks", "users"). action: Operation — list, get, create, update, or delete. id: Resource ID for get/update/delete operations. body: Request body for create/update operations. params: Optional query parameters (e.g. pagination, filters).

Writes (create/update/delete) require the server to have been started with --allow-writes, and are refused outright for protected resources such as users, roles, the authentication settings, and the monitored AD topology. Credential resources are refused for every action, including list/get.

Examples: List all directories: resource="directories", action="list" Get directory #5: resource="directories", action="get", id=5 List recent attacks: resource="attacks", action="list", params={"page": 1} Create a dashboard: resource="dashboards", action="create", body={...}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
bodyNo
actionNolist
paramsNo
resourceYes
Behavior4/5

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 clearly states that writes require --allow-writes, lists protected resources that are refused, and notes that credential resources are refused for all actions. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover error behavior or response format.

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 organized with a purpose sentence, an Args list, a restrictions paragraph, and examples. It is longer than strictly minimal but every section contributes necessary information for a generic CRUD tool; there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single generic CRUD tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers operations, parameters, restrictions, and examples. It is missing return-value and error behavior details and does not explicitly point to tie_catalog for resource discovery, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter, enumerating the five actions, and providing concrete examples for resource, action, params, and body. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal default values.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement ('Perform CRUD operations on a TIE resource') and enumerates the supported actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the generic CRUD endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast with dedicated resource tools like tie_attacks or tie_catalog.

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?

The description provides usage context by requiring a resource from tie_catalog and giving concrete examples, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this generic tool over specialized siblings or when not to use it. The restrictions on protected resources are mentioned, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ukkugh/tenable-identity-exposure-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server