Skip to main content
Glama
jamesdfinance-dev

lazaretto-mcp

Look up one sha256 content hash against the known-bad indicator store (free, no API key)

known_bad_lookup

Check a SHA256 hash against a daily updated store of known-malicious file indicators to get an instant yes/no verdict on whether the hash matches a known bad artifact.

Instructions

Checks a single sha256 content hash against Lazaretto's known-bad indicator store, which is refreshed daily from abuse.ch feeds (URLhaus / ThreatFox).

WHEN TO USE: when you already have the hash of a file or artifact and want an instant yes/no on identity. Prefer check_lockfile when you have a dependency tree instead of a hash. Prefer scan_artifact when you have a package, repo, or skill and need to know how it behaves rather than whether its hash is already listed.

COST AND EFFECTS: free, no API key, no payment. Read-only, a single HTTPS lookup.

LIMITS: this is an EXACT hash match. It performs no analysis of content, so a repacked or even trivially modified variant hashes differently and will not match.

READING THE RESULT: matched: true means this exact hash is a known-bad artifact, and sources names the feeds it came from. matched: false means only that this hash is absent from the indicator set, which is NOT a clean verdict on the artifact. matched: null means the store could not be consulted, which is also not a clean verdict. For an actual behavioral opinion, use scan_artifact.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sha256YesA sha256 content hash as 64 hex characters, with or without a leading "sha256:" prefix. This is the hash of the artifact bytes themselves (for example `shasum -a 256 file.tgz`), not of a URL or a package name.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is free, read-only, exact hash match only, no analysis, null results possible. It explains how to interpret matched, false, and null outcomes, and warns that a non-match is not a clean verdict.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections and headings, making it easy to scan. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. It could be trimmed slightly, but remains efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, lack of output schema, and the description's thorough coverage of input, behavior, cost, limits, and result interpretation, it is contextually complete. No important details are missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that the hash is of artifact bytes (not URL or package name) and provides an example of how to compute it (shasum -a 256). This extra context justifies a 4.

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 'checks a single sha256 content hash against Lazaretto's known-bad indicator store', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings check_lockfile and scan_artifact by contrasting use cases.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that tells when to use this tool (when you already have a hash) and when to use alternatives (check_lockfile for dependency trees, scan_artifact for behavioral analysis). It also advises on result interpretation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesdfinance-dev/lazaretto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server