darknet-mcp-server

threatfoxMalware

Search ThreatFox indicators of compromise (IOCs) by malware family using standardized Malpedia names.

Instructions

Search ThreatFox IOCs by malware family using Malpedia naming convention (e.g., "win.cobalt_strike", "win.emotet").

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": {
      "malware": "<malware>"
    },
    "name": "threatfoxMalware"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`malware`	Yes	Malware family name in Malpedia format (e.g., win.cobalt_strike)
`limit`	No	Max results to return (1-1000, default 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

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 carries the burden. It discloses its read-only nature via 'Search' and the naming convention, but does not mention prerequisites, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, focused sentence with a clear verb and specific examples. No wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and naming convention. It doesn't explain the return value structure, but that is not explicitly required given the simplicity.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters, including the Malpedia format example. The tool description repeats the example but adds no new parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Search), the resource (ThreatFox IOCs), and the specific filter (by malware family using Malpedia naming). It provides concrete examples (win.cobalt_strike, win.emotet) that distinguish it from sibling tools like threatfoxTag or threatfoxGetIocs.

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 the use case: querying IOCs by a specific malware family. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on Malpedia family names provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server