Look up threat intelligence for an MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 file hash via AlienVault OTX to assess malware or suspicious file indicators.
Look up threat intelligence for a file hash via AlienVault OTX. Supports MD5, SHA1, SHA256.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-call profile is covered. The description adds the provider and accepted hash types but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or what the lookup returns, so it adds only modest context.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's pattern, but the whole definition is compact and wastes little.
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 a fully described schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. With no output schema, a brief note on return content would be nice, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern enforcing the MD5/SHA1/SHA256 lengths. The description's 'Supports MD5, SHA1, SHA256' merely restates what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (look up) and resource (threat intelligence for a file hash) plus the data source (AlienVault OTX), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling hash/intel lookups such as bazaarHash or threatfoxGetIocs, which could also serve a hash-based query.
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?
Naming AlienVault OTX as the source implies when this tool is the right choice versus other providers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Usage is only inferable from the provider name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.