Search Hybrid Analysis sandbox by MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash to retrieve malware verdicts, AV detection rates, and analysis details. Requires a Hybrid API key.
Search Hybrid Analysis sandbox by file hash (MD5, SHA1, SHA256). Returns verdict, AV detection rate, and analysis details. Requires HYBRID_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | File hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256) |
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, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it names the authentication precondition (HYBRID_API_KEY) and previews the return payload (verdict, AV detection rate, analysis details), which matters since there is no output schema.
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, each carrying distinct information: scope, return shape, and prerequisite. The most important fact (what it searches) is front-loaded with zero filler.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, input domain, auth requirement, and return contents, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the routing guidance versus sibling hash lookups 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries a regex pattern plus description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the accepted hash algorithms, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (Search), a specific resource (Hybrid Analysis sandbox), and the exact input type (file hash). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bazaarHash, otx_hash, and malware_overview, which cover different sources or the broader overview case.
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 description makes usage implied by naming the accepted hash types and the required HYBRID_API_KEY, but it never says when to prefer this tool over alternative hash lookups such as bazaarHash or otx_hash, nor when it is inappropriate (e.g., non-hash indicators).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.