Search ThreatFox indicators of compromise by IP, domain, MD5/SHA256 hash, or URL to check if an artifact is linked to known malware or botnet activity. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
Search ThreatFox IOCs by term. Accepts IP addresses, domain names, hashes (MD5/SHA256), or URLs. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchTerm | Yes | Search term: IP, domain, hash (MD5/SHA256), or URL |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY requirement, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or whether lookups are billed/throttled.
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: capability first, accepted inputs second, prerequisite last. Every sentence carries information and there is 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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what inputs it takes, and the auth requirement. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling lookups, which is a usage-guideline issue more than a completeness one.
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 in the schema. The description restates the same accepted input types (IP, domain, MD5/SHA256, URL) without adding syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior details the schema lacks, so 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 (Search) and resource (ThreatFox IOCs) and enumerates the accepted indicator types, so the agent knows exactly what it queries. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like threatfoxGetIocs, threatfoxTag, or threatfoxMalware, leaving the IOC-vs-tag-vs-malware split to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative despite several closely related threatfox siblings. The agent must infer that a term-based lookup differs from threatfoxGetIocs or threatfoxTag purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.