Skip to main content
Glama
malloryai

Mallory MCP Server

Official
by malloryai

get_exploitation

Retrieve detailed exploitation data for a specific vulnerability incident using its unique identifier to determine if it has been exploited in the wild and identify the detection source.

Instructions

Get a specific exploitation

Use this to look up exploitation data when you want to know if a vulnerability has been exploited in the wild, and who detected the exploitation. This function retrieves detailed information about a specific exploitation incident using its unique identifier.

Args: identifier (str): The unique UUID of the exploitation to retrieve. Example format: "123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000"

Returns: Dict[str, Any]: Dictionary containing detailed exploitation data including: - uuid: Unique identifier for the exploitation - begins_at: When the exploitation was first observed - ends_at: When the exploitation activity ended - count: Number of exploitation occurrences detected - detection_signature_uuid: UUID of the detection signature - detection_signature_name: Name of the detection signature - detection_signature_source: Source of the detection (e.g., vendor, tool) - detection_signature_method: Method used for detection - created_at: When this record was created - updated_at: When this record was last updated

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_exploitation' MCP tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator, includes input validation via type hints and a detailed docstring schema, and delegates to the malloryai_client for the actual API call.
    @mcp.tool()
    @handle_api_errors
    async def get_exploitation(
        identifier: str,
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Get a specific exploitation
    
        Use this to look up exploitation data when you want to know if a vulnerability has been
        exploited in the wild, and who detected the exploitation. This function retrieves detailed
        information about a specific exploitation incident using its unique identifier.
    
        Args:
            identifier (str): The unique UUID of the exploitation to retrieve.
                Example format: "123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000"
    
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: Dictionary containing detailed exploitation data including:
                - uuid: Unique identifier for the exploitation
                - begins_at: When the exploitation was first observed
                - ends_at: When the exploitation activity ended
                - count: Number of exploitation occurrences detected
                - detection_signature_uuid: UUID of the detection signature
                - detection_signature_name: Name of the detection signature
                - detection_signature_source: Source of the detection (e.g., vendor, tool)
                - detection_signature_method: Method used for detection
                - created_at: When this record was created
                - updated_at: When this record was last updated
        """
        return await malloryai_client.exploitations.get_exploitation(identifier=identifier)
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a retrieval function for detailed information, which implies it's a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. It adds some context about what data is returned, but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits like side effects or performance characteristics.

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 with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter and return value sections. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly, as it uses multiple sentences that are all relevant but not minimal.

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 (a single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return value structure. However, it lacks explicit behavioral disclosures like error handling or authentication needs, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'identifier', including its type (str), purpose (unique UUID of the exploitation to retrieve), and an example format ('123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000'), which adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a specific exploitation' and 'retrieves detailed information about a specific exploitation incident using its unique identifier.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'retrieve') and resource ('exploitation', 'exploitation incident'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_exploitations' or 'get_vulnerability_exploitations', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: 'Use this to look up exploitation data when you want to know if a vulnerability has been exploited in the wild, and who detected the exploitation.' It implies usage for specific exploitation incidents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_exploitations', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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/malloryai/mallory-mcp-server'

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