Skip to main content
Glama
Stankye

AssemblyLine 4 MCP Server

by Stankye

al4_submit_sha256

Submit a file by its SHA256 hash to AssemblyLine for immediate synchronous malware analysis. Requires the file to already exist in the file store.

Instructions

Submit a file by its SHA256 hash to AssemblyLine for immediate synchronous analysis. The file must already exist in the AL4 file store.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sha256YesSHA256 hash of the file
descriptionNo
classificationNo
servicesNo
metadataNo

Implementation Reference

  • The `submitSha256` method on AL4Client sends a POST /api/v4/submit/ with the SHA256 hash. Validates the hash against SHA256_RE regex, includes optional params/metadata, and calls requestJson to make the HTTP request.
    submitSha256(
      sha256: string,
      options: SubmitOptions = {},
    ): Promise<Record<string, unknown>> {
      if (!SHA256_RE.test(sha256)) throw new Error(`Invalid sha256: ${sha256}`);
      const body: Record<string, unknown> = { sha256 };
      if (options.params) body.params = options.params;
      if (options.metadata) body.metadata = options.metadata;
      return this.requestJson("POST", "/api/v4/submit/", body, options);
    }
  • Tool registration definition with inputSchema: requires sha256 (string), with optional description, classification, services (array of strings), and metadata (object).
    {
      name: "al4_submit_sha256",
      description:
        "Submit a file by its SHA256 hash to AssemblyLine for immediate synchronous analysis. The file must already exist in the AL4 file store.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          sha256: { type: "string", description: "SHA256 hash of the file" },
          description: { type: "string" },
          classification: { type: "string" },
          services: { type: "array", items: { type: "string" } },
          metadata: { type: "object", additionalProperties: { type: "string" } },
        },
        required: ["sha256"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:391-393 (registration)
    Switch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes 'al4_submit_sha256' to `client.submitSha256(a.sha256, buildSubmitOptions(a))`.
    case "al4_submit_sha256":
      result = await client.submitSha256(a.sha256 as string, buildSubmitOptions(a));
      break;
  • The `buildSubmitOptions` helper function that extracts name, description, classification, services, and metadata from tool arguments into the SubmitOptions format passed to submitSha256.
    function buildSubmitOptions(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      return {
        name: args.name as string | undefined,
        params: {
          ...(args.description ? { description: args.description as string } : {}),
          ...(args.classification ? { classification: args.classification as string } : {}),
          ...(args.services
            ? { services: { selected: args.services as string[] } }
            : {}),
        },
        metadata: args.metadata as Record<string, string> | undefined,
      };
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'immediate synchronous analysis' and an existence constraint, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or potential latency. For a submission tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), front-loading the core purpose. While minimal, every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function. It could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return value, how to use optional parameters, or post-submission behavior, leaving significant gaps for effective agent invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema_description_coverage is only 20% (only 'sha256' has a description in the schema). The description does not elaborate on the other 4 parameters (description, classification, services, metadata), which are important for submission. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides for those parameters.

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 action (submit), the resource (file by SHA256 hash), and the context (immediate synchronous analysis, file must exist in store). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like al4_submit_file (which likely handles file uploads) and al4_ingest_sha256 (ingestion).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions a prerequisite (file must already exist in the AL4 file store) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for synchronous analysis but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Stankye/vibe-assemblylinev4-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server