Retrieve ransomware victims for any country using its ISO-2 code. Specify a country code to get the list of affected organizations.
Get victims from 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 operational safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the functional statement—no mention of empty results, pagination, data completeness, or what 'open world' means for the returned data. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.
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 a single well-documented parameter, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any detail about the result scope (e.g., all historical victims, only current) and does not distinguish itself among the many overlapping sibling tools. This leaves room for an agent to select the wrong tool without additional 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%; the countryCode parameter already has a clear ISO-2 description with min/max lengths. The description's phrase 'specific country' adds no format, example, or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.
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 'Get victims from a specific country' clearly states the action (get), the resource (victims), and the filtering criterion (specific country). It differentiates from siblings like get_all_cyberattacks and get_recent_victims, and the name clarifies it is about victims, not attacks. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_victims, get_group_victims, get_sector_victims, or get_country_attacks. There are no exclusions, no alternative references, and no context about preferred use cases. An agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.