Check a URL against the URLhaus malware database and heuristic analysis to get a threat classification and risk score.
Check a URL against URLhaus malware database and heuristic analysis. Returns threat classification and risk score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data sources (URLhaus, heuristics) and the shape of the result (classification, risk score), but says nothing about network calls, rate limits, auth, or latency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action and mechanism come first, the return value second.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially sufficient: it sketches the return values but omits input format expectations, failure behavior when URLhaus is unreachable, and the distinction from the _full variant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter ('url') with 0% schema description coverage. The description names the resource but adds no format detail (scheme requirement, fully-qualified URL, size limits), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (URL) and names the mechanism — URLhaus malware database plus heuristic analysis. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling netintel_url_safety_full, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus the near-identical sibling netintel_url_safety_full. The agent must guess which tool a given URL-safety task requires.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.