Retrieve complete YARA rules for a ransomware group, with filenames and full rule text, ready to feed into a scanner.
Get every YARA rule for a group, each with filename and full rule text.
The returned content is ready to feed to a YARA scanner.
Args: group: Group name, e.g. "lockbit3", "blackcat".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the output includes `filename` and full rule text, and the returned content is 'ready to feed to a YARA scanner.' It does not discuss error behavior, but the read-only nature lowers the bar.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a useful output note and a minimal Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has a single required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior well. It does not mention how to obtain valid group names or what happens for unknown groups, but these are minor omissions for a simple read-only retrieval tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `group` parameter. It does add meaning with examples ('lockbit3', 'blackcat') and clarifies group is a group name. However, it does not explain how to discover valid groups or whether the value must match a known YARA group from `list_yara_groups`, leaving a partial gap.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get every YARA rule for a group.' It also states the exact returned fields (`filename` and full rule text), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like `list_yara_groups` or `get_group_iocs`.
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 usage context is implied: use this when you need all YARA rules for a given group. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or that valid group names likely come from `list_yara_groups`. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.