Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

download_html_report

Retrieve HTML malware analysis reports from Threat.Zone by providing a submission UUID to access detailed security findings.

Instructions

Download HTML analysis report for a submission.

Args: uuid: Submission UUID

Returns: HTML report content

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'download_html_report' tool. It is registered via @app.tool decorator and downloads the HTML report content for the given submission UUID using the API client, then decodes and returns it as a string.
    @app.tool
    async def download_html_report(uuid: str) -> str:
        """
        Download HTML analysis report for a submission.
        
        Args:
            uuid: Submission UUID
            
        Returns:
            HTML report content
        """
        content = await get_client().download(f"/public-api/download/html-report/{uuid}")
        return content.decode('utf-8')
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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