Identify ransomware groups that have ransom notes on file and view their note counts. Use this to track groups publishing ransom notes and gauge their activity.
List ransomware groups that have ransom notes on file, with note counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 clear. The description adds the specific detail that results include note counts, which is minor but useful. It does not contradict annotations and provides a small amount of behavioral context beyond the schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it identifies the resource, the filter condition, and the output detail. Perfectly concise for a no-parameter 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 no-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema available, the description fully covers what an agent needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect. There are no hidden requirements or edge cases mentioned, but none are apparent given the simplicity of the operation.
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 and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('ransomware groups'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('that have ransom notes on file, with note counts'). This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like list_groups (all groups) and list_group_ransomnotes (notes for a specific group). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool (when you need groups that have ransom notes and their counts), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools that differ by entity type (IOCs, YARA, negotiations), the routing is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.