Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Forensics Utils MCP Server

Forensics Utils MCP Server

by jus1-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vt_scan_url_tool

Submit a URL to VirusTotal for malware scanning, identifying potential threats and security risks.

Instructions

Submit a URL to VirusTotal for scanning.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "vt_scan_url_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to scan (e.g., "http://example.com")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without detailing behavior like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether the scan is synchronous. This is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly. However, it is arguably too sparse to be fully helpful, though the conciseness itself is effective.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but with no annotations and no behavioral details in the description, important contextual information is missing (e.g., API key requirements, what the response contains, whether jobs are asynchronous). The low complexity is offset by the absence of essential usage context.

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 schema already provides a description for the only parameter 'url' with an example. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the schema coverage rubric.

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 a specific action ('Submit') on a specific resource ('a URL to VirusTotal') for a specific purpose ('scanning'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vt_get_url_report_tool (retrieval) and vt_scan_file_tool (file vs URL), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vt_get_url_report_tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., API key) or context in which submission is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools