Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
w0h1v

VirusTotal MCP Server

by w0h1v
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

VirusTotal MCP Server

MCP Registry

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for querying the VirusTotal API. This server provides comprehensive security analysis tools with automatic relationship data fetching. It integrates seamlessly with MCP-compatible applications like Claude Desktop.

Quick Start (Recommended)

Claude Code

claude mcp add --transport stdio --env VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key virustotal -- npx -y @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal

Codex CLI

codex mcp add virustotal --env VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key -- npx -y @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal

Gemini CLI

gemini mcp add -e VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key virustotal npx -y @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal

Installing via Smithery

To install VirusTotal Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal --client claude

Installing Manually

  1. Install the server globally via npm:

npm install -g @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal

  1. Add to your Claude Desktop configuration file:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "virustotal": {
      "command": "mcp-virustotal",
      "env": {
        "VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY": "your-virustotal-api-key"
      }
    }
  }
}

Configuration file location:

  • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

  1. Restart Claude Desktop

Using with VS Code

To use this MCP server in VS Code with GitHub Copilot:

  1. Install the server globally via npm:

npm install -g @burtthecoder/mcp-virustotal

  1. Create or update your VS Code MCP configuration file at:

    • macOS/Linux: ~/.vscode/mcp.json

    • Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.vscode\mcp.json

  2. Add the following configuration:

{
  "servers": {
    "virustotal": {
      "command": "mcp-virustotal",
      "env": {
        "VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY": "your-virustotal-api-key"
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. Reload VS Code to activate the MCP server

You can then use the VirusTotal tools through GitHub Copilot in VS Code by referencing the available tools in your prompts.

Related MCP server: OSINT MCP Server

Alternative Setup (From Source)

If you prefer to run from source or need to modify the code:

  1. Clone and build:

git clone <repository_url>
cd mcp-virustotal
npm install
npm run build

  1. Add to your Claude Desktop configuration:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "virustotal": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/mcp-virustotal/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY": "your-virustotal-api-key"
      }
    }
  }
}

HTTP Streaming Transport

The server supports HTTP streaming transport in addition to the default stdio transport. This is useful for running the server as a standalone HTTP service that multiple clients can connect to.

Running in HTTP Streaming Mode

Set the MCP_TRANSPORT environment variable to httpStream:

MCP_TRANSPORT=httpStream MCP_PORT=3000 VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key node build/index.js

Environment Variables

Variable

Default

Description

VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY

(required)

Your VirusTotal API key

MCP_TRANSPORT

stdio

Transport mode: stdio or httpStream

MCP_PORT

3000

HTTP server port (only for httpStream)

MCP_ENDPOINT

/mcp

HTTP endpoint path (only for httpStream)

Docker with HTTP Streaming

docker build -t mcp-virustotal .
docker run -p 3000:3000 \
  -e VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key \
  -e MCP_TRANSPORT=httpStream \
  mcp-virustotal

The server exposes a health check endpoint at /health when running in HTTP streaming mode.

Features

  • Comprehensive Analysis Reports: Each analysis tool automatically fetches relevant relationship data along with the basic report using VirusTotal's ?relationships= query, batched to minimize API calls

  • URL Analysis: Cached-report-first lookups with automatic fallback to scanning, plus contacted domains, downloaded files, and threat actors

  • File Analysis: Detailed analysis of file hashes including behaviors, dropped files, and network connections

  • IP Analysis: Security reports with historical data, resolutions, and related threats

  • Domain Analysis: DNS information, WHOIS data, SSL certificates, and subdomains

  • Detailed Relationship Analysis: Dedicated tools for querying specific types of relationships with pagination support

  • Corpus Search: Free-form search across files, URLs, domains, IPs, and comments, including VTI-style modifier syntax (type:peexe positives:5+)

  • Sandbox Behaviour Summary: Cross-sandbox merged view of processes, files, registry, network, MITRE ATT&CK, IDS alerts, and signature matches

  • Threat Collections: Read APT, malware-family, campaign, and intel-report objects referenced from any report's relationships

  • Rich Formatting: Clear categorization and presentation of analysis results and relationship data

Tools

Report Tools (with Automatic Relationship Fetching)

1. URL Report Tool

  • Name: get_url_report

  • Description: Get a comprehensive URL analysis report including security scan results and key relationships (communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, threat actors). Returns the cached VirusTotal report when available; only submits the URL for scanning and polls for completion on a cache miss

  • Parameters:

    • url (required): The URL to analyze

2. File Report Tool

  • Name: get_file_report

  • Description: Get a comprehensive file analysis report using its hash (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256). Includes detection results, file properties, and key relationships (behaviors, dropped files, network connections, embedded content, threat actors)

  • Parameters:

    • hash (required): MD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file

3. IP Report Tool

  • Name: get_ip_report

  • Description: Get a comprehensive IP address analysis report including geolocation, reputation data, and key relationships (communicating files, historical certificates/WHOIS, resolutions)

  • Parameters:

    • ip (required): IP address to analyze

4. Domain Report Tool

  • Name: get_domain_report

  • Description: Get a comprehensive domain analysis report including DNS records, WHOIS data, and key relationships (SSL certificates, subdomains, historical data)

  • Parameters:

    • domain (required): Domain name to analyze

    • relationships (optional): Array of specific relationships to include in the report

Relationship Tools (for Detailed Analysis)

1. URL Relationship Tool

  • Name: get_url_relationship

  • Description: Query a specific relationship type for a URL with pagination support. Choose from 22 relationship types including analyses, communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, graphs, referrers, redirects, threat actors, collections, and votes

  • Parameters:

    • url (required): The URL to get relationships for

    • relationship (required): Type of relationship to query

      • Available relationships: analyses, collections, comments, communicating_files, contacted_domains, contacted_ips, downloaded_files, embedded_js_files, graphs, last_serving_ip_address, network_location, referrer_files, referrer_urls, redirecting_urls, redirects_to, related_comments, related_references, related_threat_actors, submissions, urls_related_by_tracker_id, user_votes, votes

    • limit (optional, default: 10): Maximum number of related objects to retrieve (1-40)

    • cursor (optional): Continuation cursor for pagination

2. File Relationship Tool

  • Name: get_file_relationship

  • Description: Query a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support. Choose from 40 relationship types including behaviors, network connections, dropped files, embedded content, execution chains, and threat actors

  • Parameters:

    • hash (required): MD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file

    • relationship (required): Type of relationship to query

      • Available relationships: analyses, behaviours, bundled_files, carbonblack_children, carbonblack_parents, ciphered_bundled_files, ciphered_parents, collections, comments, compressed_parents, contacted_domains, contacted_ips, contacted_urls, dropped_files, email_attachments, email_parents, embedded_domains, embedded_ips, embedded_urls, execution_parents, graphs, itw_domains, itw_ips, itw_urls, memory_pattern_domains, memory_pattern_ips, memory_pattern_urls, overlay_children, overlay_parents, pcap_children, pcap_parents, pe_resource_children, pe_resource_parents, related_references, related_threat_actors, similar_files, submissions, screenshots, urls_for_embedded_js, votes

    • limit (optional, default: 10): Maximum number of related objects to retrieve (1-40)

    • cursor (optional): Continuation cursor for pagination

3. IP Relationship Tool

  • Name: get_ip_relationship

  • Description: Query a specific relationship type for an IP address with pagination support. Choose from 15 relationship types including communicating files, historical SSL certificates, WHOIS records, resolutions, threat actors, and votes

  • Parameters:

    • ip (required): IP address to analyze

    • relationship (required): Type of relationship to query

      • Available relationships: collections, comments, communicating_files, downloaded_files, graphs, historical_ssl_certificates, historical_whois, related_comments, related_references, related_threat_actors, referrer_files, resolutions, urls, user_votes, votes

    • limit (optional, default: 10): Maximum number of related objects to retrieve (1-40)

    • cursor (optional): Continuation cursor for pagination

4. Domain Relationship Tool

  • Name: get_domain_relationship

  • Description: Query a specific relationship type for a domain with pagination support. Choose from 24 relationship types including SSL certificates, subdomains, historical data, DNS records, and collections

  • Parameters:

    • domain (required): Domain name to analyze

    • relationship (required): Type of relationship to query

      • Available relationships: caa_records, cname_records, collections, comments, communicating_files, downloaded_files, graphs, historical_ssl_certificates, historical_whois, immediate_parent, mx_records, ns_records, parent, referrer_files, related_comments, related_references, related_threat_actors, resolutions, soa_records, siblings, subdomains, urls, user_votes, votes

    • limit (optional, default: 10): Maximum number of related objects to retrieve (1-40)

    • cursor (optional): Continuation cursor for pagination

Search & Pivot Tools

1. Corpus Search

  • Name: search_vt

  • Description: Search the VirusTotal corpus for files, URLs, domains, IPs, or comments matching a query. Accepts plain IOCs (hash, URL, domain, IP), free text against comments, or VTI-style search modifiers

  • Parameters:

    • query (required): Search query. Examples: a SHA-256 hash, evil.com, 8.8.8.8, type:peexe size:90kb+ tag:signed positives:5+

    • limit (optional, default: 20): Maximum number of results (1-300)

    • cursor (optional): Continuation cursor for pagination

2. File Behaviour Summary

  • Name: get_file_behaviour_summary

  • Description: Get a consolidated sandbox behaviour summary for a file, merged across every sandbox that analyzed it. Returns processes, files, registry, network activity, DNS lookups, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, IDS alerts, and signature matches in a single view — far more useful than iterating individual behaviour reports

  • Parameters:

    • hash (required): MD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file

3. Collection Lookup

  • Name: get_collection

  • Description: Retrieve a VirusTotal collection by ID. Collections represent threat actors, malware families, campaigns, intel reports, and curated IOC sets — often referenced from the related_threat_actors and collections relationships on other tools. Optionally include relationships to fetch member IOCs in the same call

  • Parameters:

    • id (required): Collection ID (e.g. threat-actor--<uuid>, malware-family--<id>)

    • relationships (optional): Array of relationship names to include

      • Available relationships: autogenerated_graphs, comments, domains, files, ip_addresses, owner, references, related_collections, related_references, threat_actors, urls

Requirements

Troubleshooting

API Key Issues

If you see "Wrong API key" errors:

  1. Check the log file at /tmp/mcp-virustotal-server.log (on macOS) for API key status

  2. Verify your API key:

    • Should be a valid VirusTotal API key (usually 64 characters)

    • No extra spaces or quotes around the key

    • Must be from the API Keys section in your VirusTotal account

  3. After any configuration changes:

    • Save the config file

    • Restart Claude Desktop

    • Check logs for new API key status

Development

To run in development mode with hot reloading:

npm run dev

Testing

Unit tests

Run the formatter test suite (no API key, no network):

npm test

Live smoke test

Exercise all 11 tools end-to-end against the real VirusTotal API:

VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY=your-key npm run smoke

The smoke test paces calls at 20 s to stay under the 4-requests-per-minute public-tier rate limit. It is not compatible with heavily reduced free tiers (e.g. 1 lookup/day) — for those, run a single tool by editing scripts/smoke-test.mjs and pick the one you want to verify.

Error Handling

The server includes comprehensive error handling for:

  • Invalid API keys

  • Rate limiting

  • Network errors

  • Invalid input parameters

  • Invalid hash formats

  • Invalid IP formats

  • Invalid URL formats

  • Invalid relationship types

  • Pagination errors

Version History

  • v1.0.0: Initial release with core functionality

  • v1.1.0: Added relationship analysis tools for URLs, files, and IP addresses

  • v1.2.0: Added improved error handling and logging

  • v1.3.0: Added pagination support for relationship queries

  • v1.4.0: Added automatic relationship fetching in report tools and domain analysis support

  • v1.5.0: Migrated to FastMCP framework with HTTP streaming transport support

  • v1.6.0: Added search_vt, get_file_behaviour_summary, get_collection, and get_domain_relationship tools; synced relationship lists with current VirusTotal v3 docs (drops removed clues, adds collections/votes/user_votes/embedded_js_files/urls_related_by_tracker_id where applicable); get_url_report now returns the cached report when available instead of re-scanning on every call; report tools use batched ?relationships= queries for dramatically fewer API calls

Contributing

  1. Fork the repository

  2. Create a feature branch (git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)

  3. Commit your changes (git commit -m 'Add amazing feature')

  4. Push to the branch (git push origin feature/amazing-feature)

  5. Open a Pull Request

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

11 tools
get_collectionA

Retrieve a VirusTotal collection by ID. Collections represent threat actors, malware families, campaigns, intel reports, and curated IOC sets — often referenced from the related_threat_actors and collections relationships on other tools. Optionally include relationships (files, urls, domains, ip_addresses, references, threat_actors, related_collections, related_references, comments, owner, autogenerated_graphs) to fetch member IOCs in the same call.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCollection ID (e.g. a threat-actor, malware family, campaign, or report identifier returned from a relationship lookup)
relationshipsNoOptional list of relationships to include in the response

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and explains the optional relationship inclusion. It does not mention destructive actions, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the behavior is transparent enough for a simple retrieval.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the core function, the second clarifies the optional relationships feature. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and relationship expansion, it does not describe the response format or structure. Given no output schema, this leaves a gap in understanding what the agent can expect to receive.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'id' parameter is a collection identifier from relationship lookups and lists the relationship options with context, going beyond the enum.

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 states 'Retrieve a VirusTotal collection by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains that collections represent threat actors, malware families, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve individual entities like files or domains.

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 mentions optionally including relationships to fetch member IOCs, giving context on when to expand results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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

get_domain_relationshipA

Query a specific relationship type for a domain with pagination support. Choose from 24 relationship types including subdomains, resolutions, SSL certificates, WHOIS history, and threat actors. Useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo
domainYesDomain name to analyze
relationshipYesType of relationship to query

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions pagination but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if domain is not found. Limited transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Adequate for a tool with pagination and enum parameters, but missing output schema and details about response structure. Does not cover authentication or error cases.

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?

Description adds pagination context to limit/cursor, but domain and relationship parameters are already well-described in schema. Schema coverage is 50%, so description compensates slightly but not fully.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Query', resource 'domain relationship', and includes pagination support. Lists examples of relationship types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_domain_report.

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?

Implies usage for specific relationship types ('detailed investigation of specific relationship types') but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Context from sibling tools helps but description lacks direct guidance.

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

get_domain_reportA

Get a comprehensive domain analysis report including DNS records, WHOIS data, and key relationships (SSL certificates, subdomains, historical data). Optionally specify which relationships to include in the report. Returns both the basic analysis and relationship data.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name to analyze
relationshipsNoOptional array of relationships to include in the report

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns data, but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a comprehensive report tool, more transparency (e.g., potential size) is expected.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key optionality detail without unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately notes both basic analysis and relationship data are returned. It could mention potential response size constraints, but given the optional relationships parameter, it is fairly 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% with both parameters described. The description adds that `relationships` is optional, which is a small addition. No further depth beyond schema details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a comprehensive domain analysis report' and lists specific data types (DNS records, WHOIS, relationships). It distinguishes from siblings like `get_domain_relationship` by implying an aggregated report rather than a single relationship.

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 implies usage for obtaining a broad domain overview but does not explicitly contrast with `get_domain_relationship` or other siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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

get_file_behaviour_summaryA

Get a consolidated sandbox behaviour summary for a file (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256), merged across every sandbox that analyzed it. Returns processes, files, registry, network activity, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, IDS alerts, and signature matches in a single view — far more useful than iterating individual behaviour reports.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesMD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are merged across multiple sandboxes and lists returned data types. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists what the summary includes.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values including processes, files, registry, network activity, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, IDS alerts, and signature matches. It also clarifies the merged nature of the data.

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% with a clear description of the hash parameter. The description adds context that the hash can be MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256, which is consistent with the schema pattern. This meets the baseline for high-coverage 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 the tool gets a consolidated sandbox behaviour summary for a file, listing specific data categories like processes, files, registry, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_report by emphasizing the merged, comprehensive view.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states it is 'far more useful than iterating individual behaviour reports,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over siblings that return individual reports.

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

get_file_relationshipA

Query a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support. Choose from 40 relationship types including behaviors, network connections, dropped files, embedded content, execution chains, and threat actors. Useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesMD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file
limitNo
cursorNo
relationshipYesType of relationship to query

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses pagination support, a behavioral trait. With no annotations, this is helpful but minimal. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or read-only nature (though implied by 'Query').

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?

Two sentences: one functional, one illustrative. No fluff or repetition. Efficiently packed with key info.

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 schema and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, relationship variety, and pagination. No output schema is provided, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role relative to others. Minor gap: no example of expected return structure.

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 50% (hash and relationship have descriptions). The description adds context for relationship types ('behaviors, network connections, dropped files...') and mentions pagination, but does not explain limit/cursor semantics beyond the schema defaults. Adequate but not compensating fully for uncovered parameters.

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 the tool queries a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support. The verb 'Query' and resource 'relationship type for a file' are specific. Sibling tools like 'get_file_report' and 'get_domain_relationship' differentiate it clearly.

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 mentions it is useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

get_file_reportA

Get a comprehensive file analysis report using its hash (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256). Includes detection results, file properties, and key relationships (behaviors, dropped files, network connections, embedded content, threat actors). Returns both the basic analysis and automatically fetched relationship data.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesMD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: automatically fetching relationship data in addition to the basic analysis. It also specifies what content is included. However, it does not mention potential latency, failure modes, or whether any auth/permissions are required, but for a read-only 'get' tool, the disclosure of auto-fetching is valuable and goes beyond a minimal description.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It succinctly lists report contents and the auto-fetch behavior without redundancy 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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content ('detection results, file properties, and key relationships') and the fact that it returns both basic analysis and relationship data. It does not specify the exact output format, but that is not required when an output schema is absent. The description is sufficiently complete for a simple get-by-hash tool.

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 only parameter, 'hash', is already described in the schema as 'MD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file'. The description repeats this information ('using its hash (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256)') without adding new meaning like format details, examples, or validation rules. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('comprehensive file analysis report') and identifies the input (hash). It lists what the report includes (detection results, file properties, relationships), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_url_report or get_file_relationship by noting it returns both basic analysis and automatically fetched relationship data.

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 gives clear context: use when you need a comprehensive file report by hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the resource type (file) and the inclusion of relationships, which separates it from get_file_relationship. No explicit when-not-to-use is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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

get_ip_relationshipB

Query a specific relationship type for an IP address with pagination support. Choose from 15 relationship types including communicating files, historical SSL certificates, WHOIS records, resolutions, and threat actors. Useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIP address to analyze
limitNo
cursorNo
relationshipYesType of relationship to query

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Mentions pagination support but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a query tool, the behavioral burden is partially unmet.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and context. No redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is acceptable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists; description does not explain response structure, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., valid IP). Lacks details on pagination output (e.g., cursor usage). Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%. Description adds 'pagination support' which loosely covers cursor and limit, but does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or enum meanings beyond what the schema provides. Fails to fully compensate for low coverage.

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?

Clearly states the verb (query), resource (IP address relationship), and specificity (specific relationship type with pagination). Distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_relationship by focusing on IP. Lists relationship types implicitly through the input schema enum.

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?

Provides context 'useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_ip_report or get_domain_relationship. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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

get_ip_reportA

Get a comprehensive IP address analysis report including geolocation, reputation data, and key relationships (communicating files, historical certificates/WHOIS, resolutions). Returns both the basic analysis and automatically fetched relationship data.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIP address to analyze

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that relationship data is 'automatically fetched', which is a behavioral trait beyond a simple read, but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether any network calls are made. The description does not explicitly state it is read-only, though the verb 'get' implies it. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently lists what the report includes and highlights the dual return of basic and relationship data without 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 complexity of an IP report tool with no output schema, the description provides a good inventory of what is returned (geolocation, reputation, relationships) and mentions both basic analysis and auto-fetched relationships. It lacks specifics about the return structure or any limitations, but for a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient to guide an agent. Slight deduction for not mentioning potential response size or filtering options.

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% for the only parameter 'ip', which already includes a clear description ('IP address to analyze'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond restating it in context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a comprehensive IP address analysis report' with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete contents (geolocation, reputation, key relationships) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the comprehensive nature and inclusion of both basic analysis and relationship data.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for full IP analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_ip_relationship. Since the sibling tool exists for relationships, mentioning that this tool includes relationships could be confusing without explicit usage boundaries. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

get_url_relationshipA

Query a specific relationship type for a URL with pagination support. Choose from 22 relationship types including communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, referrers, threat actors, and collections. Useful for paging through the full list when the summary in get_url_report is truncated.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to get relationships for
limitNo
cursorNo
relationshipYesType of relationship to query

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds context about pagination and relationship types but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description partially compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the core action and providing usage context. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage scenario, and pagination support. Lacks details on return format and error handling, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete for a query 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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds context for pagination (limit and cursor) and lists examples of relationship types, enhancing understanding 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 the tool queries a specific relationship type for a URL with pagination support, distinguishing it from get_url_report which only provides a summary.

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?

Explicitly mentions it is useful when the summary in get_url_report is truncated, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over a sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

get_url_reportA

Get a comprehensive URL analysis report including security scan results and key relationships (communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, threat actors). Returns the cached VirusTotal report when available, or submits the URL for scanning and waits for results.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to analyze

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the caching behavior (returns cached report if available) and the fallback to submission with waiting. This is important for an agent to understand latency expectations. No information about authentication or rate limits is given, but the key behavioral trait of caching is covered.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the comprehensive output, the second explains the caching and submission behavior. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description provides a detailed list of what the report contains (security scan, communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, threat actors). It also explains the caching mechanism. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and behavior.

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% for the single parameter 'url', which is described as 'The URL to analyze' with a URI format. The description does not add additional constraints or details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive URL analysis report including security scan results and key relationships. It identifies the resource (URL) and the action (get report), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_url_relationship, which also provides URL-related data. However, the specific relationship types listed are unique to this tool among the siblings.

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 explains that the tool returns cached results when available, otherwise submits and waits. This gives implicit guidance on when to expect immediate results vs. delays. However, it does not compare to alternative siblings or specify when to use this tool over others, such as get_url_relationship.

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

search_vtA

Search the VirusTotal corpus for files, URLs, domains, IPs, or comments matching a query. Accepts plain IOCs (hash, URL, domain, IP), free text against comments, or VTI-style search modifiers like "type:peexe size:90kb+ tag:signed positives:5+". Paginated via cursor.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesSearch query. Accepts file hashes, URLs, domains, IPs, comments, or VTI-style search modifiers (e.g. "type:peexe size:90kb+ tag:signed")
cursorNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses query acceptance and pagination, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or rate limits. Adds some context beyond schema.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose in first sentence, second sentence adds valuable details. Ideal conciseness.

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?

No output schema, but description does not hint at return structure (e.g., list of results, count). For a search tool, this is a gap. Adequate for usage guidance but incomplete for full context.

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 description coverage is 33% (only 'query' described briefly). Description adds significant value: explains VTI-style search with examples, mentions cursor for pagination, and reinforces limit behavior. Significantly enriches parameter understanding.

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 searches the VirusTotal corpus for multiple entity types (files, URLs, domains, IPs, comments) and distinct query styles. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all retrieval of specific reports.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on query types (IOCs, free text, VTI modifiers) and pagination via cursor. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but context implies search vs. direct lookups.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 11 tool updatesv1.0.1
    • First observedget_collection
    • First observedget_domain_relationship
    • First observedget_domain_report
    • First observedget_file_behaviour_summary
    • First observedget_file_relationship
    • First observedget_file_report
    • First observedget_ip_relationship
    • First observedget_ip_report
    • First observedget_url_relationship
    • First observedget_url_report
    • First observedsearch_vt
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 11 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: reports for comprehensive data, relationships for specific paginated queries, collection retrieval, and search. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_domain_report, get_file_relationship, search_vt). The slight deviation for get_file_behaviour_summary is still clear and does not break consistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools covering four entity types (domain, file, IP, URL) plus collection and search, the count is well-scoped for a read-oriented threat intelligence API—not too few, not excessive.

Completeness5/5

The set provides comprehensive coverage: for each entity there is a report and a relationship query, plus search and collection retrieval. Missing create/update/delete are expected for a read-only API; optional submission for URLs is handled.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • OSINT MCP Server

    CloudWaddie
    A
    license
    D
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A comprehensive MCP server providing tools for IP, domain, email, and image-based open-source intelligence. It integrates services like Shodan, VirusTotal, and HaveIBeenPwned to facilitate advanced security research and data gathering.
    56
    82 npm
    ISC

  • virustotal-mcp-server

    barvhaim
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for security analysis using VirusTotal API, enabling AI assistants to analyze URLs, files, IP addresses, and domains with automatic relationship fetching.
    8
    1
    -

Appeared in Searches