Fetch recent malicious URLs from URLhaus threat intelligence to identify active threats for cybersecurity research.
Get the most recent malicious URLs from URLhaus (up to 1000 entries)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of URLs to retrieve (1-1000, default: 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| urls_count | Yes | ||
| query_status | 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 description's main addition is that results are 'most recent' and limited to 1000 entries. It does not disclose behaviors like external API dependency, freshness guarantees, or pagination, but the openWorld annotation reduces the burden.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key limit, and every phrase contributes useful information.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is nearly complete. It only lacks explicit routing context relative to sibling tools, which keeps it just short of a perfect score.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The limit parameter is fully described in the schema with min, max, and default, so the description earns the baseline score of 3.
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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('most recent malicious URLs'), and source ('URLhaus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup_url and get_urls_by_tag. It also adds the upper bound of 1000 entries, which sharpens the tool's scope.
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 this is for retrieving a recent feed of malicious URLs, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over lookup_url, get_urls_by_tag, or get_urls_by_signature. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.