Retrieve a SHA256 file's malware analysis overview from Hybrid Analysis, including MITRE ATT&CK techniques, network indicators, processes, and extracted files.
Get full malware analysis overview from Hybrid Analysis for a SHA256 hash. Returns MITRE ATT&CK techniques, network indicators, processes, and extracted files. Requires HYBRID_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | SHA256 hash of the file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires HYBRID_API_KEY and enumerates the return categories (MITRE ATT&CK techniques, network indicators, processes, extracted files). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or handling of unknown hashes, keeping it short of a 5.
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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then return contents, then the authentication prerequisite. Nothing is redundant, and each sentence adds material value for an agent or developer.
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-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, provider, input, auth requirement, and return categories. It leaves minor gaps around failure behavior and data freshness, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 single sha256 parameter is fully described with a pattern in the schema. The description repeats that the input is a SHA256 hash but adds no format, normalization, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a full malware analysis overview from Hybrid Analysis for a SHA256 hash. It differentiates itself from generic siblings like malware_search by naming the provider and the 'overview' scope. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or explain why an agent should choose this over otx_hash or bazaarHash.
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 implied: the agent should call this when it has a SHA256 hash and wants hybrid-analysis malware reporting. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling hash-lookup tools, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough to infer the basic use case but stops short of routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.