Get JARM Stats
get_jarm_statsRead-onlyIdempotent
Get JARM statistics.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ScanMalware.com URL Scanner
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not explain what 'statistics' denotes (e.g., time range, aggregation level, or global vs. per-scan scope). This leaves the agent without useful operational expectations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It clearly states the tool's action and target. It is not 5 because it lacks additional structure (e.g., breaking down what 'statistics' includes) that would enhance utility without adding excessive length.
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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what specific JARM statistics are provided (e.g., counts, distributions, global aggregates), and the abundance of sibling stats tools makes this ambiguity more consequential. The description could be improved with a brief mention of the data scope.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist. The simplicity of the interface is fully captured by the schema.
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 'Get JARM statistics' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (JARM statistics), distinguishing it from siblings like get_jarm_signatures or search_by_jarm. However, it does not elaborate on what 'statistics' encompasses, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 such as get_jarm_signatures or get_analyzer_stats. Given the large number of sibling tools, the lack of any comparative context or usage scenarios makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.