darknet-mcp-server

pulsedive_search

Search Pulsedive for indicators by value and retrieve matching IDs to enrich threat intelligence.

Instructions

Search Pulsedive indicators by value. Returns matching indicator IDs.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "pulsedive_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 full safety and behavior disclosure. The search-by-value phrasing implies a read-only operation, and 'Returns matching indicator IDs' clarifies the output. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no matches are found. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second states the result. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or vague phrasing.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description is sufficient: it states what it does and what it returns. However, given many sibling search tools and no output schema, a brief note on when to use this over other Pulsedive tools would be beneficial. The mention of 'indicator IDs' partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 100% coverage with 'query' described as 'Search query', which is generic. The description's 'by value' clarifies that the query is an indicator value (e.g., IP, domain, hash), adding useful context beyond the schema. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Search', identifies the resource 'Pulsedive indicators', and specifies the input 'by value' and output 'matching indicator IDs'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pulsedive_indicator or pulsedive_explore, which likely handle detail lookup or exploration.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for initial lookup and that pulsedive_indicator should be used for full details, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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

Deploy Server