Ioc Search MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs like 'detects malware, suspicious activity, and clean results' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is informative but incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing key outputs. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more polished for readability.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the tool's function and outputs. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a threat analysis tool.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'query', with an example hash value. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as hash format requirements or validation rules. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides detailed threat analysis for a given hash' with specific outputs like analysis date, reputation, categories, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hash analysis rather than domains, IPs, or URLs, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

The description implies usage for threat analysis of hashes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (domain_search, ip_address_search, url_search). No guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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