Threat.Zone MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific submission data types or actions, but some overlap exists. For example, get_submission_indicators and get_submission_iocs could be confusing as both relate to threat indicators, though their descriptions suggest iocs might be a subset. The three scan_file_* tools are well-differentiated by analysis type (CDR, sandbox, static).
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout. All tools use snake_case with clear prefixes: 'get_' for retrieval, 'download_' for file downloads, 'scan_' for analysis submissions, 'interpret_' for value translation, and 'search_' for searching. This consistency makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count3/5
With 31 tools, the count feels heavy for a threat analysis server. While the domain involves detailed submission data retrieval, many tools are variations fetching specific artifact types (DNS, HTTP, TCP, UDP, etc.) that could potentially be consolidated. The number exceeds typical well-scoped ranges (3-15 tools), suggesting some tool proliferation.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a threat analysis platform. It includes submission creation (multiple scan types), retrieval (detailed artifacts, statuses, reports), search capabilities, user/system information, and interpretation helpers. There are no apparent gaps in the core workflow from submission to analysis results retrieval.
Average 3.1/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads an HTML report, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the download is immediate or asynchronous. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool's function and parameters. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded if the key details were integrated into the opening sentence, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It explains what the tool does and its parameters, and the output schema handles return values, so it doesn't need to detail the HTML content. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
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 adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'uuid: Submission UUID' in the Args section, which clarifies that the parameter is a submission identifier. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here it's 3 because the description provides basic meaning without details like format or validation rules. It doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download HTML analysis report for a submission.' It specifies the verb ('download'), resource ('HTML analysis report'), and target ('submission'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_artifacts', which might also retrieve submission-related data, so it doesn't reach a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid submission UUID, or compare it to siblings like 'download_sanitized_file' or 'get_submission_artifacts', which might handle different types of submission data. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 pagination behavior, which is valuable, but doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'public submission'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated, but overall there's minimal waste.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job covering basics. However, for a tool that presumably returns sensitive data (submissions), it should better explain what 'public' means and any access constraints.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting both parameters (page and jump) with their defaults and basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges), the relationship between parameters, or what 'jump' means beyond 'items per page' (e.g., maximum values).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get public submissions with pagination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_submissions' (personal vs public) and 'get_submission' (single vs multiple). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'public submissions' are in this context.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it retrieves public submissions (unlike 'get_my_submissions'), the description doesn't explicitly state this distinction or mention other sibling tools like 'search_by_hash' for different querying needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The 'Args' section is structured but could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, though it might benefit from a bit more detail given the lack of annotations.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address key contextual aspects like how this tool differs from siblings or behavioral traits, leaving the agent to guess in a crowded toolset.
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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID,' which provides context not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the UUID format, source, or validation rules. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this offers basic but incomplete compensation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get submission details by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('submission details'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_submissions' or 'get_public_submissions' that also retrieve submissions, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
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. With siblings like 'get_my_submissions' and 'get_public_submissions' that likely retrieve submissions in different ways, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the artifacts are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the UUID doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and its single parameter. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose statement first. However, the 'Args:' section formatting is slightly redundant since the parameter is already mentioned in the first sentence, and there's room to combine information more efficiently.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about authentication requirements, error conditions, and how this tool relates to the many sibling submission tools. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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 adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema. It mentions 'uuid: Submission UUID' which provides basic context, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is the bare minimum. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid submission UUID, where to find it, or provide examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for the documentation gap.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all artifacts for a specific submission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_status_summary' by focusing specifically on artifacts rather than general submission data or status information. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from tools like 'get_submission_indicators' or 'get_submission_iocs' which might also retrieve specific types of submission data.
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. With many sibling tools that retrieve submission-related data (get_submission, get_submission_indicators, get_submission_iocs, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when an agent should choose it over other options. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the configurations are returned in, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter documentation. There's no wasted text, though the structure is simple with just two sentences. It could be more polished but efficiently conveys core information.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and minimal parameter coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it minimally complete.
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 adds the parameter 'uuid' and specifies it's a 'Submission UUID', which provides basic semantics. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter documented, this is the minimum viable baseline. It doesn't elaborate on UUID format, validation, or examples.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all extracted configurations for a specific submission', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_submission or get_submission_artifacts, which appear to retrieve different aspects of submissions.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools starting with 'get_submission_', there's no indication of what makes this one unique or when it should be chosen over others like get_submission or get_submission_artifacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. The description lacks details on error handling or performance traits, leaving significant gaps.
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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more polished in presentation.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more detail on operation context would improve completeness.
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 adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. It doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID version) or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for low coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all DNS queries for a specific submission.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS queries'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_submission_http' or 'get_submission_tcp' by focusing on DNS data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, which slightly limits differentiation.
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. It mentions 'specific submission' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing a submission UUID from another tool) or compare it to siblings like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_network_threats' that might overlap in scope. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Get' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by integrating parameter information more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on data scope, relationships to sibling tools, and behavioral traits, which are important for effective use in a server with many similar tools.
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 adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter 'uuid' and specifying it as a 'Submission UUID', which clarifies its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but insufficient detail, such as format or constraints, resulting in an adequate baseline score.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all indicators for a specific submission', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission_iocs' or 'get_submission_artifacts', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data, leaving some ambiguity in scope.
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 other 'get_submission_*' siblings that might retrieve related data. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only basic parameter information without comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with an output schema, as it doesn't prepare the agent for what to expect beyond basic functionality.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, but the 'Args' section could be integrated more seamlessly, and it lacks a concluding note on output or usage, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, it falls short by not addressing behavioral aspects or usage context, making it only minimally adequate.
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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'uuid' as 'Submission UUID', adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details (e.g., UUID version), or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Indicators of Compromise for a specific submission'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission_indicators', which might serve a similar or overlapping function, preventing a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_submission_indicators', 'get_submission_artifacts'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential errors. This is inadequate for a tool with an output schema, as it lacks context on what behavior to expect beyond basic retrieval.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the Args more seamlessly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving UDP data for a submission), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation.
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 includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'uuid' parameter as 'Submission UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints, leaving gaps in understanding despite compensating somewhat for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all UDP requests and packets for a specific submission', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_submission_tcp' by specifying UDP, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other submission-related tools beyond that scope.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_status_summary', leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' results, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves pagination. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function. There's no wasted text, though the structure is simple without explicit sections beyond 'Args:'.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low parameter complexity (1 param with 0% schema coverage), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a read operation with output schema support, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional. It doesn't provide format details (e.g., UUID version) or examples, so it meets the baseline for low coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Varist Hybrid Analyzer results for a specific submission', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_status_summary' by specifying the type of results (Varist Hybrid Analyzer). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools (e.g., 'get_submission_indicators'), so it's not a perfect 5.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_submission', 'get_submission_indicators', and 'get_submission_iocs', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The only implied context is needing Varist Hybrid Analyzer results, but no explicit usage rules are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states the action is to 'Get' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'matched YARA rules' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief Args section. It's efficient with zero waste, though the structure is simple and could be more polished for clarity.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low parameter complexity, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive—it doesn't explain format or constraints beyond what's implied.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all matched YARA rules for a specific submission,' making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_submission_indicators' or 'get_submission_iocs,' which might also retrieve submission-related data, so it misses full differentiation.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_indicators,' there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('submit a file for static analysis') but does not describe what static analysis entails, expected outcomes, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves file processing and result visibility settings.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured list of parameters. Each sentence earns its place by introducing the tool and explaining parameters, though the parameter explanations are brief and could be more informative. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of file analysis, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics. The output schema may handle return values, but the description does not fully compensate for other gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Path to the file to analyze'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or interactions between parameters, providing only minimal context for the undocumented schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit a file for static analysis.' It specifies the verb ('submit') and resource ('file'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_file_cdr' or 'scan_file_sandbox', which likely perform different types of analysis. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'scan_file_sandbox' or 'scan_url', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for static analysis. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'is_public' parameter affecting result visibility, which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or what constitutes 'threats and malicious content' in the analysis results.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear. However, the formatting with 'Args:' heading could be slightly more polished, and the second sentence about parameters might benefit from integration with the main description.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, for a threat analysis tool with security implications, it should better explain what analysis entails, result interpretation, and usage boundaries. The output schema reduces need for return value details, but behavioral context remains incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantic meaning for both parameters ('url: The URL to analyze' and 'is_public: Whether the scan results should be public'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain URL format requirements, what 'public' means in practice, or default behavior when is_public is unspecified.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a URL for threats and malicious content.' This specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('URL'), and objective ('threats and malicious content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_file_sandbox' or 'search_by_hash', which perform similar threat analysis on different resources.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scan_file_sandbox' for file analysis or 'get_submission' for retrieving existing scan results, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for URL scanning versus other threat analysis methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by hash types but doesn't describe what 'submissions' are, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are structured, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main action and hash types but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other gaps keep it from being complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that 'hash' accepts MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 formats, which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify 'page' and 'jump' beyond defaults (e.g., what 'jump' means—items per page—or valid ranges). With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search submissions by file hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256).' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('submissions'), and scope ('by file hash'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_public_submissions', which might also retrieve submission data.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_submission' (which might retrieve by ID) or 'get_public_submissions' (which might list submissions), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'available' means (e.g., all metafields, user-specific). The description is minimal, leaving key operational details unspecified.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without redundancy.
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?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool with no annotations and siblings like 'get_sample_metafield', it should clarify scope or usage to be fully complete, leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 since no parameters exist, and it doesn't compensate unnecessarily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get available metafields for scan configuration', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'metafields', but lacks detail on what metafields are or their scope. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_sample_metafield', leaving ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_sample_metafield' and 'get_submission_config_extractor', the description doesn't explain if this is for general metadata, specific scans, or configuration setup, offering no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output entails. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single sentence 'Get submission statuses.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage and behavior, making it only adequate but with clear gaps in guidance.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but since there are no params, this is acceptable, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get submission statuses' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('submission statuses'), but it's vague about scope—it doesn't specify if this retrieves all statuses, a filtered set, or a summary. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_submission_status_summary' by not mentioning 'summary', but the distinction is minimal and lacks detail.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_submission_status_summary' and 'get_my_submissions', the description doesn't indicate if this is for all submissions, specific contexts, or how it differs, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second elaborating on returns. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly into a single sentence for better flow.
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?
Given that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what configuration details are included but doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which are important for a server configuration tool with no annotations.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the return values, which aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without inputs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current server configuration'), and specifies what it includes ('API URL and connection status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_statuses' or 'get_submission_config_extractor', which might have overlapping scopes, preventing a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might retrieve configuration or status-related data (e.g., 'get_statuses', 'get_submission_config_extractor'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'human-readable status and threat level', which adds some context about output formatting. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., using consistent formatting). Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal title ('Uuid'). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID version) or provide examples, preventing a perfect score.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get submission details with interpreted status and threat level.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('submission details'), and key outputs ('interpreted status and threat level'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'interpret_status'/'interpret_threat_level', which prevents a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_submission', 'interpret_status', 'get_submission_indicators'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's preferred over others. The minimal context ('with interpreted status and threat level') is insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the UUID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, and the output schema will handle return values, so additional details in the description are less critical, though more behavioral context would improve it.
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 adds minimal parameter semantics by specifying that 'uuid' is a 'Submission UUID', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive, as it doesn't explain format or validation rules for the UUID.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all TCP requests and packets for a specific submission'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_submission_udp' or 'get_submission_network_threats', which likely provide related but different data, so it misses full differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_submission_udp' for UDP data or 'get_submission_network_threats' for broader network analysis, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone without explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Submit for CDR processing') but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (CDR typically modifies files), authentication requirements, rate limits, expected processing time, or what happens to the original file. The description only covers basic parameter usage without behavioral context.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place by adding value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations into the main description, but the current structure is effective.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (file processing with 4 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and all parameters, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should address the mutation nature of CDR processing.
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?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains what each parameter means: 'file_path: Path to the file to process', 'is_public: Whether the scan results should be public', 'entrypoint: File to execute within archive (if applicable)', 'password: Password for archive files (if applicable)'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit a file for CDR (Content Disarm and Reconstruction) processing.' This specifies the verb ('Submit'), resource ('file'), and processing type ('CDR'), making it distinct from sibling tools like scan_file_sandbox or scan_file_static. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond naming the specific processing type.
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. It doesn't mention when CDR processing is appropriate compared to sandbox or static scanning, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states the tool downloads a file and returns base64-encoded content, which is basic behavioral info. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file size constraints, or error handling. For a download operation without annotations, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. The front-loaded purpose statement ensures immediate understanding.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on behavioral risks and alternatives. For a download operation, more detail on constraints or integration would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool has only one parameter. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that 'uuid' refers to a 'Submission UUID', clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Uuid' title. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download the CDR-sanitized file for a given submission UUID.' It specifies the verb (download), resource (CDR-sanitized file), and key input (submission UUID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_html_report' or 'get_submission_artifacts', which might offer alternative file retrieval methods.
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. It mentions the required UUID but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as whether the submission must be complete or accessible. With siblings like 'download_html_report' and various 'get_submission_*' tools, the lack of comparative context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions pagination behavior, which is valuable, but doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'user' means in this context (current authenticated user vs. specified user). The description is minimal beyond the pagination hint.
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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The two-sentence format is front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal—it covers pagination basics but lacks context about authentication, error handling, or sibling tool relationships, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'page' as page number with default 1, and 'jump' as items per page with default 10. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges) or the relationship between them.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's submissions'), and mentions pagination as a key feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' (singular) or 'get_public_submissions', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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. With siblings like 'get_submission' (singular), 'get_public_submissions', and 'get_submission_status_summary', there's no indication of when this paginated list of user submissions is preferred over other submission-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') for configuration data, but does not detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'sample' entails (e.g., mock data vs. real examples). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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, clear sentence: 'Get sample metafield configuration for sandbox analysis.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the essential information without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'sample' means, return format hints) that could enhance usability. For a simple tool, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter-specific details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get sample metafield configuration for sandbox analysis.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('sample metafield configuration'), and context ('sandbox analysis'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metafields' or 'get_submission_config_extractor', which slightly limits its clarity.
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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'sandbox analysis' as a context, but does not specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_metafields' or other configuration-related tools. There is no explicit advice on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current user information, workspace details, and usage limits') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and gets straight to the point.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is simplified. It adequately explains what data is retrieved, but with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or rate limits. For a read operation with structured output, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('current user information, workspace details, and usage limits'), making it easy to understand what data will be retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_submissions' or 'get_server_config', which might also retrieve user-related or configuration data.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings like 'get_my_submissions' or 'get_server_config', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, without annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'uuid: Submission UUID' clarifies that the UUID refers to a submission, which isn't obvious from the schema alone (schema coverage is 0%). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions. However, it doesn't detail the UUID format or source, so it's not a full 5.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all HTTP requests and packets for a specific submission.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HTTP requests and packets'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_submission_dns' or 'get_submission_tcp' by focusing on HTTP data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_submission_artifacts' might overlap), so it's not a perfect 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a submission UUID from another tool), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_submission' or 'get_submission_artifacts'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Get' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what 'all network threats' entails (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in this context.
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?
The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'uuid' parameter corresponds to a 'Submission UUID', clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could provide more context on UUID format or sourcing.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all network threats for a specific submission', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_submission_indicators or get_submission_iocs, which might overlap in threat-related data retrieval.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get_submission_indicators and get_submission_iocs that might retrieve similar threat-related data, the description lacks context on specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it appropriately sized and structured for a simple tool.
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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it could benefit from more behavioral context or sibling differentiation to be fully comprehensive.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'threat levels used in analysis results', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'interpret_threat_level' or explain how this differs from other threat-related tools in the list.
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 like 'interpret_threat_level' or other threat-related siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool interprets a numeric value into a human-readable description, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if status_value is out of range 1-5), performance considerations, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return intent adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or usage context, which would be beneficial for full completeness, especially with no annotations provided.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'status_value' is an integer with no description coverage (0%). The description specifies it's a 'numeric status value (1-5)' from 'submission results', clarifying the parameter's purpose, valid range, and context. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the range.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Interpret a numeric status value from submission results.' It specifies the verb ('interpret') and resource ('numeric status value'), making it distinct from siblings like 'get_statuses' or 'get_submission_status_summary' which likely retrieve rather than interpret status values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'interpret_threat_level', which might handle a similar interpretation task for threat levels instead of status values.
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 when you have a numeric status value (1-5) from submission results and need a human-readable description. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_statuses' (which might list statuses) or 'interpret_threat_level' (for threat levels), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions the tool interprets a numeric value into a human-readable description, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for out-of-range values), performance characteristics, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return intent. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling), which is a minor gap since annotations are absent and the output schema may not fully describe behavior.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'level_value' is a 'numeric threat level (0-3),' clarifying the range and context, while the schema only indicates it's an integer with no description (0% coverage). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could detail format or constraints more explicitly.
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 tool's purpose: 'Interpret a numeric threat level value from analysis results.' It specifies the verb ('interpret'), resource ('numeric threat level value'), and source ('from analysis results'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_levels' (which likely retrieves levels) or 'interpret_status' (which interprets status values).
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 by mentioning 'from analysis results,' suggesting it should be used after analysis data is obtained. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_levels' or provide exclusions (e.g., not for non-numeric inputs). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., asynchronous processing). The description mentions 'analysis' but doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond parameter configuration.
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 appropriately sized for a complex tool with 19 parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed parameter explanations. While comprehensive, every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameter semantics that aren't in the schema.
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?
Given the tool's high complexity (19 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context like submission workflow, result retrieval, or error handling. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 19 parameters, the description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains each parameter's purpose, acceptable values (e.g., environment options, timeout ranges), defaults, and conditional usage ('if applicable'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 specific action ('Submit a file for advanced sandbox analysis') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from simpler siblings like 'scan_file_sandbox_simple' and static/URL scanning tools. It specifies 'advanced' analysis with 'detailed configuration', providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'advanced sandbox analysis with detailed configuration', suggesting this is for comprehensive analysis rather than quick scans. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'scan_file_sandbox_simple' or 'scan_file_static', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially delivers. It mentions 'default settings' and 'simplified version' which gives some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read/write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens after submission. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps.
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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and parameter explanations in a well-organized format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
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 complexity (file analysis with 4 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, parameters, and usage guidance. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. The main gap is lack of behavioral disclosure beyond what's provided.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It provides semantic meaning for each parameter beyond just their names, including default values and conditional usage ('if applicable'). However, it doesn't elaborate on format requirements or constraints beyond the basics.
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 specific action ('Submit a file for simple sandbox analysis') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'scan_file_sandbox' by specifying it uses 'default settings' and is a 'simplified version'. This provides clear differentiation from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use scan_file_sandbox for advanced configuration options' and identifies this as the 'simplified version' for default settings. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![threatzonemcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/threat-zone/threatzonemcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/threat-zone/threatzonemcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![threatzonemcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/threat-zone/threatzonemcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/threat-zone/threatzonemcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/threat-zone/threatzonemcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server