darknet-mcp-server

bazaarTag

Search MalwareBazaar for malware samples by tag or YARA signature name.

Instructions

Search MalwareBazaar (abuse.ch) by tag or YARA signature name. Use 'tag' for tag-based search or 'signature' for signature-based search.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bazaarTag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No	Tag to search for (e.g., Emotet, AgentTesla)
`signature`	No	YARA signature name to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Search' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, output format, or whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the search returns or any constraints (e.g., needing at least one parameter, possible rate limits). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a notable omission, but overall the description still conveys the essential operation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with examples (Emotet, AgentTesla), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification by framing them as separate search modes, but does not explicitly state that one of the two is required or how they interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource (MalwareBazaar/abuse.ch), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like bazaarHash by specifying two search modes: tag and YARA signature. This provides a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 second sentence explicitly instructs the agent to use 'tag' for tag-based search or 'signature' for signature-based search, providing clear context for parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server