find_js_fingerprint_similar_by_hashFind similar JS fingerprints by hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| threshold | No | ||
| content_sha256 | Yes | ||
| exclude_exact_matches | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as similarity scoring logic, threshold interpretation, or output format. With annotations present, the lack of extra context here is acceptable, though not enriching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single terse sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It conveys the basic purpose but omits essential details about parameters and behavior. This is borderline under-specification, similar to a vague description, rather than a well-structured concise one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'similar' means, how threshold affects results, or how it differs from similar tools. An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description alone leaves significant gaps for a correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 only hints at 'by hash', which maps to content_sha256. It provides no meaning for limit, threshold, or exclude_exact_matches. These are left entirely to the schema's basic names and default values, offering little guidance beyond what a developer might infer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find similar JS fingerprints by hash' uses a specific verb (find), resource (JS fingerprints), and method (by hash). It clearly conveys the core operation. However, it does not distinguish from similarly named siblings like 'get_jsfingerprint_similar' or 'search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hash', so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There are many sibling tools for JS fingerprint similarity (e.g., get_jsfingerprint_similar, search_js_fingerprinter2_similar), but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the JS fingerprint search functions (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 and search_jsfingerprints_by_md5) which are nearly identical. The large number of get_* and search_* tools for various statistics also creates boundary ambiguity.
The verb_noun pattern is mostly followed, but there are significant inconsistencies: 'jsfingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprint', and the occasional use of 'find' instead of 'search' (e.g., find_js_fingerprint_similar_by_hash). This mixed style makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 128 tools, the server is severely over-scoped. Many tools could be combined (e.g., all search_jsfingerprints_by_* variants) or parameterized. The sheer number overwhelms an agent and suggests poor API design.
The core URL scanning workflow (submit, retrieve results, search, analyze) is well covered, including detailed sub-analyses like malware, YARA, and JS fingerprints. Minor gaps include no scan cancellation or user-specific scan listing, but overall coverage is strong.