Retrieve a specific section of a static malware scan JSON report by scan_id and path, or list top-level keys when path is empty.
Return part of the FULL JSON report by path, e.g. 'files[1].pe.imports', 'files[0].archive.entries', 'files[2].iocs', 'engines'. Empty path lists top-level keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| scan_id | Yes | scan_id returned by scan_file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation with openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about report navigation and empty-path behavior, but does not explain invalid-path handling or what a returned section looks like.
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 front-loaded, compact, and every clause carries useful information: the return concept, several path examples, and the empty-path behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 simple read-only report-navigation tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description provides enough to call it correctly. A note about invalid paths or scan readiness would make it fully complete.
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 only 50%, and the path parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates well with concrete path examples and the empty-path rule for listing top-level keys, though it does not formally define the path syntax.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: returning a portion of the FULL JSON report by path. This distinguishes it functionally from scan_file, list_files, and search_strings, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the top score.
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 explains path mechanics but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_strings or list_files. It also omits preconditions such as needing a completed scan or a valid scan_id, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.