Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

interpret_status

Convert numeric malware analysis status codes into clear, human-readable descriptions for Threat.Zone submission results.

Instructions

Interpret a numeric status value from submission results.

Args: status_value: Numeric status value (1-5)

Returns: Human-readable status description

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
status_valueYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'interpret_status' tool. It takes a numeric status value and returns a human-readable string description using a predefined mapping. Registered via @app.tool decorator.
    @app.tool
    async def interpret_status(status_value: int) -> str:
        """
        Interpret a numeric status value from submission results.
        
        Args:
            status_value: Numeric status value (1-5)
            
        Returns:
            Human-readable status description
        """
        status_map = {
            1: "File received",
            2: "Submission is failed", 
            3: "Submission is running",
            4: "Submission VM is ready",
            5: "Submission is finished"
        }
        return status_map.get(status_value, f"Unknown status: {status_value}")
  • The @app.tool decorator registers the interpret_status function as an MCP tool.
    @app.tool
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 interprets a numeric value into a human-readable description, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if status_value is out of range 1-5), performance considerations, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand 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 mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return intent adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or usage context, which would be beneficial for full completeness, especially with no annotations provided.

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 semantics beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'status_value' is an integer with no description coverage (0%). The description specifies it's a 'numeric status value (1-5)' from 'submission results', clarifying the parameter's purpose, valid range, and context. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the range.

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: 'Interpret a numeric status value from submission results.' It specifies the verb ('interpret') and resource ('numeric status value'), making it distinct from siblings like 'get_statuses' or 'get_submission_status_summary' which likely retrieve rather than interpret status values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'interpret_threat_level', which might handle a similar interpretation task for threat levels instead of status values.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a numeric status value (1-5) from submission results and need a human-readable description. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_statuses' (which might list statuses) or 'interpret_threat_level' (for threat levels), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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