Fetch the most recent ransomware posts and victim claims, returning group name, post title, URL, and discovery timestamp.
Fetch the most recent ransomware posts and victim claims from RansomLook. Returns group name, post title, URL, and discovery timestamp.
| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds a useful return-field list (group name, post title, URL, discovery timestamp) that matters because no output schema exists, but it omits volume, pagination, or freshness window.
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 sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Efficient and appropriately sized for a no-arg fetch tool.
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 reader with annotations covering its safety profile, the description supplies the source and the returned fields, which is nearly everything needed to call it. It would be complete only if it added scale or time-window details.
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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or for the schema to leave undocumented.
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 concrete verb ('Fetch'), resource ('most recent ransomware posts and victim claims'), and source ('from RansomLook'). It is clear on its own but does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'ransomwareRecent', which appears to cover the same ground, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ransomwareRecent, ransomwareSearch, or ransomlookGroups. There is no context, trigger condition, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.