Retrieve detailed threat intelligence for a specific URL by querying the URLhaus malicious URL database.
Get detailed information about a specific URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to look up (must be a complete URL with protocol) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| url_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 and openWorldHint, and the description adds no conflicting behavior. It adds little extra behavioral context beyond 'get detailed information,' but for a simple read-only lookup with an output schema, the annotation coverage makes this acceptable.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and object: 'Get detailed information about a specific URL.'
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 one fully documented required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. What is missing is only comparative guidance against sibling tools, which is already addressed in other dimensions.
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%, so the schema fully documents the url parameter including the requirement for a complete URL with protocol. The description only restates 'specific URL' and adds no meaningful details 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 clear operation ('get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific URL'), and 'specific' helps separate it from bulk listing tools like get_recent_urls and get_urls_by_tag. However, 'detailed information' is generic and does not convey what kind of details are returned.
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 phrase 'a specific URL' implies this tool is for looking up one exact URL rather than recent or tagged lists, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over lookup_host or lookup_payload. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.