Skip to main content
Glama

get_ransomware_victim

Get full details of a specific ransomware victim from Vysion by their unique ID.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ransomware_victim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVictim ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-style retrieval returning "full details" for one record, but it says nothing about error behavior for a bad or missing ID, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how large the returned record may be.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing "### Responses: **200**: Successful Response" block is boilerplate that restates a generic status code and adds no actionable information for an agent.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the agent guessing about return contents ("full details" is unspecified) and failure modes. It is adequate rather than complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Victim ID", so the schema already does the work. The description echoes this with "by their unique ID" but adds no format, origin (e.g., from search results), or example beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get full details of a specific ransomware victim from Vysion") and scopes it to a single record via "by their unique ID", which implicitly separates it from the bulk-oriented search_ransomware_victims and histogram siblings. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must already hold a victim ID, which rules out discovery-style calls. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_ransomware_victims to look a victim up, and no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources