CVE MCP Server

by mukul975

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

check_ransomware_intel

Check a Bitcoin address against the Ransomwhere database to identify if it is linked to a known ransomware family.

Instructions

Check if a Bitcoin address is associated with a known ransomware family using the Ransomwhere database.

Args: bitcoin_address: Bitcoin wallet address to look up (P2PKH, P2SH, or bech32)

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": {
      "bitcoin_address": "<bitcoin_address>"
    },
    "name": "check_ransomware_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bitcoin_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the database (Ransomwhere) and accepted address formats, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or response format. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a bullet point. Every sentence adds meaning with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and input format. It could optionally mention the output, but it's not necessary per the rubric.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by specifying the parameter as a Bitcoin wallet address and listing valid types (P2PKH, P2SH, bech32), which goes beyond the schema's plain type string.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'Bitcoin address' against 'ransomware family' using a specific database. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_ip_reputation and check_url_safety by focusing on Bitcoin addresses and ransomware.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for checking ransomware associations of Bitcoin addresses but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as other threat intelligence tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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