Retrieve file intelligence by hash, including global prevalence, first seen, size, type, signer, issuer, and determination. Only the hash is transmitted, preserving privacy.
Get what Defender knows about a file by hash: global prevalence and first seen, size, type, signer and issuer, determination. Only the hash leaves the environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_hash | Yes | SHA1 or SHA256 of the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the user-visible privacy guarantee that only the hash leaves the environment, and the specific knowledge fields returned. This helps an agent understand both the data scope and the side-effect profile, with no contradiction to the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the response fields are listed in a compact series, and the privacy caveat is appended as a separate, purposeful sentence. Every word contributes to call success or expectation-setting.
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?
With a single required parameter, fully documented schema, and strong annotations, the description supplies enough to call the tool: it enumerates the returned fields and notes the data-handling behavior. A minor gap is that the concept of 'determination' is not elaborated, and there is no explicit error or empty-result explanation, but given the tool's simplicity this is not a serious omission.
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 input schema already documents file_hash as 'SHA1 or SHA256 of the file' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate it. The description does imply the hash is used to look up file intelligence, but it adds no fresh parameter-specific details beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('what Defender knows about a file') and the key input ('by hash'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (prevalence, first seen, size, type, signer, issuer, determination). This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like defender_get_file_alerts or defender_get_file_machines, which address different aspects of a file.
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 implies this tool is for general file intelligence by hash, and the privacy note ('Only the hash leaves the environment') hints at a data-handling consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of nearby alternatives such as defender_get_file_statistics or defender_get_file_alerts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.