Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

get_submission_tcp

Retrieve TCP requests and packets for a specific malware analysis submission using its UUID to examine network traffic patterns and behaviors.

Instructions

Get all TCP 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 and registration for the 'get_submission_tcp' tool. Decorated with @app.tool, it takes a submission UUID and returns TCP requests and packets by calling the ThreatZone API via get_client().
    @app.tool
    async def get_submission_tcp(uuid: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get all TCP requests and packets for a specific submission.
        
        Args:
            uuid: Submission UUID
        """
        return await get_client().get(f"/public-api/get/submission/{uuid}/tcp")
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.

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