Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

get_submission_dns

Retrieve DNS queries from a malware analysis submission to identify network activity and potential threats using the Threat.Zone MCP Server.

Instructions

Get all DNS queries 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 for the 'get_submission_dns' tool. It is decorated with @app.tool, which registers it as an MCP tool. The function fetches DNS query data for a specified submission UUID from the ThreatZone API using get_client().
    @app.tool
    async def get_submission_dns(uuid: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get all DNS queries for a specific submission.
        
        Args:
            uuid: Submission UUID
        """
        return await get_client().get(f"/public-api/get/submission/{uuid}/dns")
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.

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