Find ransomware victims by keyword to monitor active threats and track affected organizations in real time.
Search for victims by keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (max 1000) | |
| keyword | Yes | Keyword to search for in victim names |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line statement, such as matching semantics, result limits, default behavior, or scope of the search.
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 is efficient, though terse enough to border on under-specification for a tool with routing alternatives.
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?
With only two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. It omits matching behavior and default limit behavior, but the schema and annotations cover most operational needs.
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%: keyword and limit both have descriptions. The description's 'by keyword' reinforces the keyword parameter but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly names the action ('Search') and resource ('victims') and identifies the distinguishing mechanism ('by keyword'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling getters, but the keyword qualifier makes the tool's role reasonably apparent.
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 'by keyword' phrasing implies this is the unstructured search option among structured getters like get_country_victims and get_group_victims. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.