Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vysion

by ai.vysion.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_leaks_by_hash

Search Vysion's leak database for a file by its hash. Automatically detects hash type: SHA256 (64 chars), SHA1 (40 chars), or MD5 (32 chars).

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "search_leaks_by_hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gteNoDate in ISO 8601 format (e.g., '2024-01-01T00:00:00Z' or 'YYYY-MM-DD')
lteNoDate in ISO 8601 format (e.g., '2024-01-01T00:00:00Z' or 'YYYY-MM-DD')
hashYesFile hash: SHA256 (64 chars), SHA1 (40 chars), or MD5 (32 chars)
pageNoPage number
page_sizeNoResults per page (default 5, max 100). Keep low to avoid large responses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it is a low-risk read/search tool. The one genuinely valuable disclosure is automatic hash-type detection by length, which tells the agent it need not pre-classify the hash. It omits what happens on an unrecognized hash length, what a match record contains, and whether results are paginated beyond the schema's page fields.

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 two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the trailing 'Responses: 200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json' block is auto-generated boilerplate that conveys nothing about the actual return payload and dilutes the definition.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description should do more than one line of purpose statement. It never says what a successful match returns (a leak record set?) or how a zero-result search behaves, which leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including gte/lte date bounds and page/page_size limits. The description's only parameter note (hash length typing) restates the schema's hash description verbatim, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Vysion's leak database for a file by its hash.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling hash-less lookups (search_leaks_by_email, search_leaks_by_ip), though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from generic search_leaks or from search_leaks_by_email when an email is also available, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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

All Vysion toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources