virustotal_checkChecks an IP or domain against VirusTotal to report how many security engines flag it as malicious or suspicious, helping assess reputation before investigation.
VirusTotal reputation: how many security engines flag the IP/domain as malicious or suspicious. Needs VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| target_type | Yes | ||
| investigation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the API key requirement and clarifying that the result reflects engine flag counts for malicious or suspicious reputation.
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 two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and return meaning; the second adds the only hard prerequisite.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with rich annotations but no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the reputation summary and API key requirement, yet it omits parameter details, especially investigation_id, and does not fully specify the return shape.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It indirectly explains target_type by saying IP/domain, but it does not explain the target parameter format or the purpose of investigation_id, leaving meaningful required and optional parameter semantics undocumented.
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 names the specific resource (VirusTotal reputation for IP/domain) and states what the result represents: how many security engines flag the target as malicious or suspicious. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like abuseipdb_check or threat_lists_check.
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 tool's intended use is implied by 'VirusTotal reputation' and the IP/domain scope, and the description notes the VIRUSTOTAL_API_KEY prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling reputation tools such as abuseipdb_check or threat_lists_check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.