Query MalwareBazaar by MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash to identify malware samples and retrieve abuse.ch threat intelligence. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
Look up a malware sample in MalwareBazaar (abuse.ch) by hash. Accepts MD5, SHA1, or SHA256. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash of the malware sample |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful fact the annotations do not carry: the ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY prerequisite, plus the accepted hash algorithms. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether a miss returns an error or a null result.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the input format and auth note.
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 single-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, purpose, accepted input, and auth are all covered. Minor omission: no indication of what the lookup returns or how a not-found hash is surfaced.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates MD5/SHA1/SHA256 for the single hash parameter. The description restates that same set without adding format, casing, or length constraints, so the baseline of 3 is correct.
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?
Specific verb ('look up') plus resource ('malware sample in MalwareBazaar') plus scope ('by hash'). An agent can distinguish this from the bazaarRecent and bazaarTag siblings without opening any schema.
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 lookup key is clear (you must have a hash), which implies when this tool applies. But it never names bazaarRecent or bazaarTag as the alternatives for hashless browsing, so selection between the three bazaar tools is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.