Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kaspersky OpenTIP MCP Server

Kaspersky OpenTIP MCP Server

Official
by KasperskyLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

analyze_file

Submit a file for basic security analysis by providing its filename and full file path to the Kaspersky OpenTIP API.

Instructions

Submit a file for basic analysis using the OpenTIP API.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "full_file_path": "<full_file_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
full_file_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"analyze_fileArguments"
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, matching the submission behavior. Description adds 'basic analysis' but no further behavioral details beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence is efficient but could be more informative without significant added length. Adequate but not optimal.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Description is too minimal given tool complexity. Does not explain what 'basic analysis' entails, expected output, or post-submission actions. Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%; description does not explain the two required parameters (filename, full_file_path) or their usage, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it submits a file for basic analysis using OpenTIP API. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search tools and get_full_analysis_result.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., search tools for existing data). Does not specify prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools