Retrieve ransomware attacks for any country using its ISO-2 code to monitor real-time victim activity.
Get cyberattacks for a specific country
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | Yes | ISO-2 country code (e.g., US, DE, FR) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral detail about pagination, limits, or handling of unknown country codes. With annotations covering the main concerns, this is acceptable; there is no contradiction.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is minimal but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The main gaps are ambiguity about whether 'country' refers to attack origin or target, and lack of alternative routing, but these are minor given the simple context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with countryCode fully described as an ISO-2 code with format and examples. The description only says 'specific country' and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('cyberattacks') scoped to a specific country, which distinguishes it from get_all_cyberattacks and get_recent_cyberattacks. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_country_victims beyond the resource name, but the intent is clear.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for a single country rather than all attacks, nor does it give exclusions or point to siblings. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.