Retrieve recent malware payloads from the URLhaus database to support threat intelligence and cybersecurity research.
Get recent malware payloads from URLhaus
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of payloads to retrieve (1-1000, default: 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| payloads | Yes | ||
| query_status | Yes | ||
| payloads_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already carried by annotations. The description adds the 'recent' scoping and URLhaus source, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as default limit behavior, pagination, ordering, or API-specific quirks. It is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence states the action, object, and source with no filler or redundant wording. It is as concise as a useful description can be.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers the core behavior and source sufficiently. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with lookup_payload, but nothing essential about invoking the tool is missing.
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 fully documents the single optional 'limit' parameter with range and default, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description also adds nothing about how 'limit' relates to 'recent', so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get recent malware payloads') plus a clear source ('URLhaus'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_urls (URLs, not payloads) and lookup_payload (specific lookup, not recent list).
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 is for fetching a list of recent payloads, but it never states when to prefer this over the six siblings or provides exclusions such as using lookup_payload for a specific hash. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.