Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

search_by_hash

Search Threat.Zone malware analysis submissions using file hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256) to identify threats and retrieve analysis reports.

Instructions

Search submissions by file hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256).

Args: hash: File hash to search for page: Page number (default: 1) jump: Number of items per page (default: 10)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes
pageNo
jumpNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'search_by_hash' tool, decorated with @app.tool for registration. It queries the ThreatZone API to search for submissions matching the provided file hash (MD5, SHA1, SHA256), with pagination support.
    @app.tool
    async def search_by_hash(hash: str, page: int = 1, jump: int = 10) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Search submissions by file hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256).
        
        Args:
            hash: File hash to search for
            page: Page number (default: 1)
            jump: Number of items per page (default: 10)
        """
        return await get_client().get(f"/public-api/get/{hash}/{page}/{jump}")
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 mentions searching by hash types but doesn't describe what 'submissions' are, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are structured, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.

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 (search with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main action and hash types but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other gaps keep it from being complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that 'hash' accepts MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 formats, which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify 'page' and 'jump' beyond defaults (e.g., what 'jump' means—items per page—or valid ranges). With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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: 'Search submissions by file hash (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256).' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('submissions'), and scope ('by file hash'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_public_submissions', which might also retrieve 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_submission' (which might retrieve by ID) or 'get_public_submissions' (which might list submissions), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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