Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

get_submission_http

Retrieve HTTP requests and network packets from a malware analysis submission to examine communication patterns and identify malicious activity.

Instructions

Get all HTTP requests and packets for a specific submission.

Args: uuid: Submission UUID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function decorated with @app.tool, implementing the get_submission_http tool by fetching HTTP data from the ThreatZone API for a given submission UUID.
    @app.tool
    async def get_submission_http(uuid: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get all HTTP requests and packets for a specific submission.
        
        Args:
            uuid: Submission UUID
        """
        return await get_client().get(f"/public-api/get/submission/{uuid}/http")
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.

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