Search URLhaus (abuse.ch) entries by malware or file tag, such as Emotet, Dridex, or elf, to retrieve associated malicious URLs for threat investigation. Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
Search URLhaus (abuse.ch) entries by tag (e.g., "Emotet", "Dridex", "elf"). Requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Tag to search for in URLhaus |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured data: it requires ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY. It stops short of describing return volume or rate limits.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and source, then the auth requirement. No filler; every clause carries information.
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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies source, filter semantics, examples, and auth. Minor gaps remain around result shape and pagination limits.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the examples ('Emotet', 'Dridex', 'elf') meaningfully clarify what counts as a tag and that both malware families and file types are valid. This adds value beyond the one-line schema description.
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 (URLhaus/abuse.ch entries) scoped by tag, which implicitly separates it from urlhausLookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so it falls short of a 5.
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 by 'search by tag', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to urlhausLookup, threatfoxTag, or bazaarTag for adjacent needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.