urlhaus-mcp-server

get_urls_by_signature

Read-only

Retrieve malicious URLs associated with a specific malware signature from the URLhaus database. Specify the signature name and optional result limit to obtain threat intelligence for cybersecurity analysis.

Instructions

Get URLs associated with a specific malware signature

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (1-1000, default: 100)
`signature`	Yes	Malware signature name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`signature`	Yes
`urls_count`	Yes
`query_status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and open-world, and the description adds no behavioral caveats such as exact-match semantics, ordering, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral detail beyond what they already provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the resource, and the distinguishing filter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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, an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing it over sibling tools, which is a minor omission here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'signature' and 'limit'. The description's phrase 'specific malware signature' merely restates the signature parameter's schema text and adds little new meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact operation ('Get URLs') and the filtering resource ('specific malware signature'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_urls_by_tag and get_recent_urls. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The intended context is implied by the tool name and operation but not stated directly, so the agent must infer when to choose this over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server