Skip to main content
Glama

Malwarebazaar

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (which only say not read-only, not destructive), the description discloses rate limiting (5/day), the claim_token flow for later retrieval, and the instruction not to paste end-user prompts. It also states that filing without an account returns a token, adding concrete behavioral context.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, triggers, exclusions, message guidance, token mechanics, rate limit, and quota. It is logically structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what not to do, how to use the returned claim_token, rate limits, and even roadmap impact. There are no significant gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: for `message` it specifies 'describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' and for `claim_token` it provides exact usage syntax and behavior. These enrich the parameter understanding, though the schema already carries much of the load.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist." It clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from the many research/search siblings by stating its unique role. The title and description align perfectly.

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?

Provides explicit usage triggers for each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion: not for tools from other MCP servers. It even gives a decision heuristic ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') and directs users to file elsewhere for non-Pipeworx tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Malwarebazaar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server is named Malwarebazaar, yet 28 of 36 tools have nothing to do with malware—they cover general data lookup, SEC filings, Polymarket betting, memory, and npm scanning. Even within the malware tools, search_family, search_signature, search_tag, recent_samples, and get_sample_info overlap heavily, and the Pipeworx tools include near-duplicates like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. An agent cannot reliably pick between these without reading lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

A few tools follow verb_noun patterns (search_family, search_tag, get_sample_info, list_subscriptions), but the set mixes styles: ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile vs polymarket_arbitrage vs generate_llms_txt vs scan_dependency. Prefixes are inconsistent (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, scan_*, get_*, list_*, recent_*), and there is no predictable convention tying names to their domain.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far beyond what a MalwareBazaar MCP server should expose; most of the tools actually belong to a separate Pipeworx data platform, with only 5-6 malware-specific tools. The count is heavy and unfocused, especially for a server whose name implies a single malware-intel corpus.

Completeness2/5

For the malware domain, the set covers lookup by hash, family, signature, tag, and recent samples, but lacks obvious operations like submitting a sample, downloading a sample, or getting detailed YARA rule hits. For the broader Pipeworx domain, the surface is sprawling and overlaps heavily (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs validate_claim vs bet_research), so the completeness is uneven—deep in some niches, missing core malware workflow actions.

Resources