Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
darknet-mcp-server

darknet-mcp-server

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bazaarHash

Submit an MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash to retrieve malware sample details from MalwareBazaar.

Instructions

Look up a malware sample in MalwareBazaar (abuse.ch) by hash. Accepts MD5, SHA1, or SHA256.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "bazaarHash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesMD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash of the malware sample

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety and behavior load. It notes that the tool accepts three hash types, which is useful, but it does not describe what happens on lookup (e.g., return format, not-found behavior, potential rate limits). For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action ('Look up') and resource ('malware sample'), and the hash formats follow naturally. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and accepted input. It does not specify the return value or error behavior, but given the low complexity and no annotations, this is mostly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'hash' with the same allowed formats (MD5, SHA1, SHA256). The description repeats this information without adding extra meaning, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a malware sample in MalwareBazaar (abuse.ch) by hash.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('malware sample'), and the hash-based scope distinguishes it from siblings like bazaarRecent and bazaarTag.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: you have a hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256) and want to look it up in MalwareBazaar. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the hash-focused language makes the intended scenario clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools