Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kaspersky OpenTIP MCP Server

Kaspersky OpenTIP MCP Server

Official
by KasperskyLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_full_analysis_result

Read-only

Retrieve complete analysis results for a file previously submitted via the web portal by providing its hash.

Instructions

Get full analysis results for a file that was submitted via the web portal.

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": {
      "file_hash": "<file_hash>"
    },
    "name": "get_full_analysis_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_hashYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds 'full analysis results' but does not elaborate on potential incompleteness or other behavioral traits. No contradiction but minimal added value.

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?

Extremely concise (12 words), but at the expense of parameter explanation. It is well-structured for a simple tool but missing crucial details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it does not mention the constraint that the file must have been submitted via the web portal, nor does it compare with sibling tools.

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%, and the tool description does not explain the only parameter (file_hash). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema guidance, leaving the agent without context on how to identify the file.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full analysis results for a file submitted via the web portal. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_file (submission) and search tools (querying by different criteria).

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 versus alternatives such as analyze_file or search tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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