Retrieve threat intelligence for a malware payload using its MD5 or SHA256 hash. Identify malicious files and access URLhaus data to support cybersecurity analysis.
Get information about a malware payload by its hash
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | MD5 or SHA256 hash of the malware payload |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| payload_info | 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=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and completeness profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the lookup mechanism, which is acceptable 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 communicates the purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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 a single required parameter, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary.
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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('MD5 or SHA256 hash of the malware payload'). The description merely restates 'by its hash' without adding format or syntax details, so it does not go beyond the schema.
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 ('information about a malware payload'), and the lookup key ('by its hash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_url and lookup_host, which operate on different identifiers.
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 makes the use case clear: call this tool when you have a hash of a malware payload. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tool names provides enough differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.