Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

get_submission_artifacts

Retrieve all analysis artifacts for a specific malware submission using its UUID to access detailed threat intelligence and forensic data.

Instructions

Get all artifacts for a specific submission.

Args: uuid: Submission UUID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function decorated with @app.tool, which registers and implements the get_submission_artifacts tool. It fetches analysis artifacts for the given submission UUID from the ThreatZone API via the get_client() helper.
    async def get_submission_artifacts(uuid: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get all artifacts for a specific submission.
        
        Args:
            uuid: Submission UUID
        """
        return await get_client().get(f"/public-api/get/submission/{uuid}/analysis-artifacts")
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.

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