Retrieve ransomware victims for a specific year and month. Provide a year (2020 or later) and month (1-12) to get a list of organizations affected during that period.
Get victims by specific year and month
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Year (e.g., 2024) | |
| month | Yes | Month (1-12) |
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the query parameters, such as result limits, pagination, or data coverage. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes little extra transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core operation and its key filter efficiently, earning its place entirely.
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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling victim-related tools, but the core calling context is adequately covered.
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%: both year and month have descriptive names, ranges, and examples in the schema. The description's phrase 'specific year and month' adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get victims') and the resource ('victims') with a specific filter ('by specific year and month'). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recent_victims or search_victims, so it falls short of a 5.
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 the tool should be used when a caller needs victims for an exact year and month, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer. There are many sibling tools with overlapping victim-related functionality, and no routing direction is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.