get_domain_scansGet recent scans for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'recent' scoping behavior, indicating a time-limited result set, but does not define 'recent' or disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or response pagination.
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 concise at just seven words, with no filler or redundancy. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than being optimally informative, so it loses one point for not adding even small clarifying details about 'recent' or parameter usage.
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 three parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without guessing the meaning of 'limit' and 'status'. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics and the definition of 'recent' remain ambiguous.
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%. The description implicitly covers the 'domain' parameter via 'for a domain', but 'limit' and 'status' are left completely unexplained. No added meaning is provided for these fields, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Get recent scans for a domain' with a specific verb (get), resource (scans), and domain scope. It distinguishes itself from generic scan listing tools in the sibling set by focusing on a domain, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.
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 given on when to use this tool versus other scan-related tools such as get_recent_scans or search_scans. The 'for a domain' phrase implies domain-specific usage, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
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.