get_domain_historyGet historical scans for a domain (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'paginated' as a behavioral trait, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether results are ordered, what happens with no scans, or the meaning of 'historical' in terms of time range.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It avoids redundancy with the title and annotations, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and the parentheses efficiently add the pagination detail.
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?
The output schema and annotations provide substantial structured context, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives, expected data volume, or pagination behavior, making it only minimally sufficient for a list-returning endpoint among many similar tools.
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?
The schema has 3 parameters (domain, page, limit) with 0% description coverage in the description. The word 'paginated' hints that page and limit exist, but the description does not explain the meaning of 'domain', why 'limit' is capped, or how page indexing works. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names and defaults.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('historical scans for a domain') and a pacing qualifier ('paginated'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_domain_scans (likely current scans) and get_domain_stats by focusing on historical data and pagination.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contrast with get_domain_scans, or suggest scenarios for historical data retrieval. The mere existence of a functional description implies usage but does not clarify edge cases.
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.