Retrieve recently analyzed malware samples and verdicts from Hybrid Analysis to aid threat investigations. Requires HYBRID_API_KEY.
Get the latest malware detonation feed from Hybrid Analysis. Returns recently analyzed samples with verdicts. Requires HYBRID_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine extra context: the upstream source is Hybrid Analysis, the payload contains verdicts, and it discloses the HYBRID_API_KEY credential requirement. It omits any rate-limit, pagination, or freshness-window detail.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return content, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter read-only feed with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, from where, what comes back (recently analyzed samples with verdicts), and the credential needed. Nothing an agent requires to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest malware detonation feed') and names the source system, Hybrid Analysis. This differentiates it reasonably well from generic siblings like malware_search or malware_overview, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with other recent-sample tools such as bazaarRecent.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'latest ... feed' signals you call this when you want recent samples rather than a targeted lookup. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative named, despite many overlapping siblings (malware_search, malware_overview, bazaarRecent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.