Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

malware_load_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load Lenny Zeltser's malware analysis report writing context for local analysis. Returns a JSON payload with section guidance, the MBC capability model, ICD-203 confidence scoped to the family call, Pyramid-of-Pain IOC tiering, and a briefPolicy explaining why there is no companion brief. The 'profile' parameter ANNOTATES sections (organizationalReport/researcherNarrative applicability label) rather than filtering — every section is returned so cross-profile comparisons are possible. This server never requests your sample, analysis notes, or indicators and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines and the report template flow to your AI for local analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicsNoNarrow the response to specific topics; 'all' includes everything.
profileNoAnnotate sections by their applicability to this profile. Sections are NOT filtered — annotated only.
detail_levelNoResponse size: minimal, standard, or comprehensive.
include_examplesNoInclude exampleGood/examplePoor in fieldGuidance entries.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: it explicitly states the server never requests samples/notes/indicators and instructs the AI to keep data local. It also clarifies that the 'profile' parameter annotates rather than filters, which is a non-obvious behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return content and then parameter clarification. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, though it is somewhat long and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers what the JSON payload contains (section guidance, MBC, ICD-203, Pyramid-of-Pain, briefPolicy) and how the profile parameter behaves. It also provides essential privacy context. This is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly explaining that 'profile' annotates sections rather than filtering, resolving a potential interpretation ambiguity. Other parameters like topics and detail_level are already well-described in the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as loading Lenny Zeltser's malware analysis report writing context for local analysis, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It further lists the distinct contents (MBC model, ICD-203 confidence, Pyramid-of-Pain, briefPolicy) that distinguish it from sibling tools like malware_get_template or malware_get_guidelines.

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 states the tool is for 'local analysis' and emphasizes that it does not request sensitive data, implying it is a safe context loader. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like malware_get_guidelines or malware_get_template, so the usage context is clear but exclusion criteria are only implied.

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

All website-search toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.

Resources