VirusTotal MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: reports for comprehensive data, relationships for specific paginated queries, collection retrieval, and search. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_domain_report, get_file_relationship, search_vt). The slight deviation for get_file_behaviour_summary is still clear and does not break consistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools covering four entity types (domain, file, IP, URL) plus collection and search, the count is well-scoped for a read-oriented threat intelligence API—not too few, not excessive.
Completeness5/5
The set provides comprehensive coverage: for each entity there is a report and a relationship query, plus search and collection retrieval. Missing create/update/delete are expected for a read-only API; optional submission for URLs is handled.
Average 3.8/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Mentions pagination support but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a query tool, the behavioral burden is partially unmet.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and context. No redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists; description does not explain response structure, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., valid IP). Lacks details on pagination output (e.g., cursor usage). Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%. Description adds 'pagination support' which loosely covers cursor and limit, but does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or enum meanings beyond what the schema provides. Fails to fully compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb (query), resource (IP address relationship), and specificity (specific relationship type with pagination). Distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_relationship by focusing on IP. Lists relationship types implicitly through the input schema enum.
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?
Provides context 'useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_ip_report or get_domain_relationship. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description should disclose key behaviors. It notes 'automatically fetched relationship data', implying additional API calls, but does not explicitly state it's read-only, mention rate limits, or describe any destructive actions. Lack of clarity on side effects or constraints reduces 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and hash types, second lists report contents. No wasted words, front-loaded with clear action. Structure supports quick comprehension.
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 no output schema and moderate complexity, description mentions specific report sections (behaviors, dropped files, etc.), which is helpful. However, it omits details on output format, pagination, hash length limits, or whether report is synchronous. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 coverage is 100% (single 'hash' parameter fully described with pattern). Description adds that hash can be MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256, which matches the pattern but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive file analysis report using a hash, specifying hash types (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256) and listing included content (detections, properties, relationships). This distinguishes it from specific siblings like get_file_behaviour_summary or get_file_relationship.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions returning both basic analysis and relationship data, it does not explain when to prefer this over get_file_relationship or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions pagination but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if domain is not found. Limited 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Adequate for a tool with pagination and enum parameters, but missing output schema and details about response structure. Does not cover authentication or error cases.
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?
Description adds pagination context to limit/cursor, but domain and relationship parameters are already well-described in schema. Schema coverage is 50%, so description compensates slightly but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Query', resource 'domain relationship', and includes pagination support. Lists examples of relationship types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_domain_report.
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?
Implies usage for specific relationship types ('detailed investigation of specific relationship types') but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Context from sibling tools helps but description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns data, but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a comprehensive report tool, more transparency (e.g., potential size) is expected.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key optionality detail without unnecessary words.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately notes both basic analysis and relationship data are returned. It could mention potential response size constraints, but given the optional relationships parameter, it is fairly 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds that `relationships` is optional, which is a small addition. No further depth beyond schema details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a comprehensive domain analysis report' and lists specific data types (DNS records, WHOIS, relationships). It distinguishes from siblings like `get_domain_relationship` by implying an aggregated report rather than a single relationship.
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 for obtaining a broad domain overview but does not explicitly contrast with `get_domain_relationship` or other siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavior beyond being a retrieval tool. Omits details on authentication, rate limits, or whether the report generation triggers side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load purpose and content. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
Adequately describes returned data for a single-parameter tool with no output schema. Could mention data format or structure, but core elements are covered.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description adds overall context but does not enhance understanding of the IP parameter beyond the schema's format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive IP address analysis report including specific data types (geolocation, reputation, relationships). Distinguishes from siblings like get_ip_relationship by mentioning both basic analysis and automatically fetched relationships.
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?
Implies usage for obtaining a full IP report but does not explicitly state when to use this over get_ip_relationship or other siblings. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses pagination support, a behavioral trait. With no annotations, this is helpful but minimal. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or read-only nature (though implied by 'Query').
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?
Two sentences: one functional, one illustrative. No fluff or repetition. Efficiently packed with key info.
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 schema and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, relationship variety, and pagination. No output schema is provided, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role relative to others. Minor gap: no example of expected return structure.
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 coverage is 50% (hash and relationship have descriptions). The description adds context for relationship types ('behaviors, network connections, dropped files...') and mentions pagination, but does not explain limit/cursor semantics beyond the schema defaults. Adequate but not compensating fully for uncovered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support. The verb 'Query' and resource 'relationship type for a file' are specific. Sibling tools like 'get_file_report' and 'get_domain_relationship' differentiate it clearly.
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 mentions it is useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the caching behavior (returns cached report if available) and the fallback to submission with waiting. This is important for an agent to understand latency expectations. No information about authentication or rate limits is given, but the key behavioral trait of caching is covered.
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?
Two sentences: the first states the comprehensive output, the second explains the caching and submission behavior. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides a detailed list of what the report contains (security scan, communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, threat actors). It also explains the caching mechanism. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and behavior.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'url', which is described as 'The URL to analyze' with a URI format. The description does not add additional constraints or details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 retrieves a comprehensive URL analysis report including security scan results and key relationships. It identifies the resource (URL) and the action (get report), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_url_relationship, which also provides URL-related data. However, the specific relationship types listed are unique to this tool among the siblings.
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 explains that the tool returns cached results when available, otherwise submits and waits. This gives implicit guidance on when to expect immediate results vs. delays. However, it does not compare to alternative siblings or specify when to use this tool over others, such as get_url_relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses query acceptance and pagination, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or rate limits. Adds some context beyond schema.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose in first sentence, second sentence adds valuable details. Ideal conciseness.
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?
No output schema, but description does not hint at return structure (e.g., list of results, count). For a search tool, this is a gap. Adequate for usage guidance but incomplete for full context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only 'query' described briefly). Description adds significant value: explains VTI-style search with examples, mentions cursor for pagination, and reinforces limit behavior. Significantly enriches parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the VirusTotal corpus for multiple entity types (files, URLs, domains, IPs, comments) and distinct query styles. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all retrieval of specific reports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on query types (IOCs, free text, VTI modifiers) and pagination via cursor. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but context implies search vs. direct lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds context about pagination and relationship types but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description partially compensates for missing annotations.
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?
Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the core action and providing usage context. No wasted words.
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?
Covers purpose, usage scenario, and pagination support. Lacks details on return format and error handling, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete for a query tool.
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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds context for pagination (limit and cursor) and lists examples of relationship types, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries a specific relationship type for a URL with pagination support, distinguishing it from get_url_report which only provides a summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions it is useful when the summary in get_url_report is truncated, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over a sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and explains the optional relationship inclusion. It does not mention destructive actions, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the behavior is transparent enough for a simple retrieval.
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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the core function, the second clarifies the optional relationships feature. No unnecessary words.
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?
While the description explains the tool's purpose and relationship expansion, it does not describe the response format or structure. Given no output schema, this leaves a gap in understanding what the agent can expect to receive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'id' parameter is a collection identifier from relationship lookups and lists the relationship options with context, going beyond the enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieve a VirusTotal collection by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains that collections represent threat actors, malware families, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve individual entities like files or domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optionally including relationships to fetch member IOCs, giving context on when to expand results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are merged across multiple sandboxes and lists returned data types. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool, the disclosure is sufficient.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists what the summary includes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values including processes, files, registry, network activity, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, IDS alerts, and signature matches. It also clarifies the merged nature of the data.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the hash parameter. The description adds context that the hash can be MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256, which is consistent with the schema pattern. This meets the baseline for high-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a consolidated sandbox behaviour summary for a file, listing specific data categories like processes, files, registry, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_report by emphasizing the merged, comprehensive view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states it is 'far more useful than iterating individual behaviour reports,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over siblings that return individual reports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-virustotal MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/w0h1v/mcp-virustotal/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/w0h1v/mcp-virustotal)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-virustotal MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/w0h1v/mcp-virustotal/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/w0h1v/mcp-virustotal)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/w0h1v/mcp-virustotal'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server