Skip to main content
Glama
utmstack

UTMStack MCP Server

by utmstack

get_alerts_for_response

Poll new open alerts at a severity threshold and retrieve structured fields for triage. Returns incident-ready data like severity, adversary IP, target user, and host for immediate response.

Instructions

Poll NEW OPEN alerts at/above a severity threshold, projected to the fields needed for incident-response triage. Designed for the monitoring loop: returns a compact signal instead of full alert documents.

For each alert returns: id, time, name, severity, status, category, technique, adversaryIp, targetUser, host (dataSource), dataType. Plus a total count.

Use the returned host to target run_agent_command and adversaryIp/ targetUser as mitigation parameters. (Only structured fields are surfaced; never build a command out of free-text alert content.)

Args: since: start of the look-back window (relative 'now-5m' or absolute ISO). min_severity: 'Low' | 'Medium' | 'High' | 'Critical' (inclusive threshold). size: max alerts to return. include_in_review: also include status 'In Review' (3), not just 'Open' (2). server: which configured server to target (default active/default).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNo
sinceNonow-5m
serverNo
min_severityNoHigh
include_in_reviewNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the behavior: it returns a compact subset of alert fields and a total count. It also details the effect of the include_in_review parameter (including status 'In Review' vs just 'Open'). Side effects are absent, and the description is transparent about return format.

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 well-structured: a concise summary sentence, a list of returned fields, usage guidance, and parameter details. Every sentence adds valuable information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately omits return type details but still explains the fields and their usage. It includes a total count but does not cover edge cases like empty results. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a polling tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'since' as a look-back window, 'min_severity' with values and inclusive threshold, 'size' as max alerts, 'include_in_review' with status mapping, and 'server' as target. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it polls 'NEW OPEN alerts at/above a severity threshold' for 'incident-response triage' and mentions returning a 'compact signal'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_alerts, get_alert, and count_open_alerts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says it is 'Designed for the monitoring loop' and advises on using returned fields for other tools (e.g., run_agent_command) and warns against building commands from free-text. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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/utmstack/MCP'

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