Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opencti-mcp

opencti-mcp

by scriptedstatement
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

lookup_hash

Identify suspicious files by looking up their MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hash in OpenCTI threat intelligence to uncover indicators and context.

Instructions

Look up a file hash (MD5, SHA1, SHA256) in OpenCTI.

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": "lookup_hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesFile hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 of explaining behavior. It only states the lookup action and supported hash types. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no match is found, whether matching is exact, or what the response contains.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and supported formats are all present and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, not-found behavior, or how this lookup compares to sibling lookup tools. For an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'hash' is documented in the schema as 'File hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256'. The description repeats this rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('file hash'), and even enumerates the supported hash types (MD5, SHA1, SHA256). It is clear about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like lookup_ioc or search_observable, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_ioc or search_observable. The description gives no context about preferred use cases, exclusions, or why an agent should pick this over related lookup/search tools.

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