Google Threat Intelligence MCP Server

get_file_behavior_summary

Retrieve a unified summary of file behavior reports from all sandboxes by providing a file hash, enabling quick assessment of file threats.

Instructions

Retrieve a summary of all the file behavior reports from all the sandboxes.

Args: hash (required): MD5/SHA1/SHA256) hash that identifies the file. Returns: The file behavior summary.

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": "get_file_behavior_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hash`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 for behavioral transparency. It states the required hash parameter and that it returns a summary, but does not disclose any potential issues such as size limits, caching behavior, or whether the hash must be from a known file.

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 concise, with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by parameter details. The return statement is minimal but acceptable. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has a single parameter and a simple purpose. The description covers the input adequately and states the return type. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs the similar sibling get_file_behavior_report, and it does not describe any error conditions or special cases.

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 description explains the hash parameter, specifying that it is required and listing the accepted types (MD5, SHA1, SHA256). Since the schema property has no description, this adds valuable context. However, it does not specify exact length or format constraints.

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 ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('summary of file behavior reports'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_behavior_report (which likely gets a detailed report) and get_file_report. The mention of 'from all the sandboxes' adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_behavior_report or get_file_report. The description assumes the agent knows the distinction from tool names alone, which may not be sufficient.

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

Deploy Server