get_jsfingerprintGet JS fingerprint by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fingerprint_id | Yes | ||
| include_functions | No | ||
| include_http_headers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'by ID', which is a scope constraint but not a behavioral disclosure (e.g., whether optional flags change the response, or what happens on not-found). No contradiction exists, but the added context is minimal.
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 with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though the content is sparse. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but it is not overly verbose.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, optional flags), an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the tool has many close siblings, and the description does not clarify what a 'fingerprint' includes, how the optional flags affect results, or when a caller would choose this over search/get source variants. The minimal text leaves the agent under-informed.
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 implies fingerprint_id's role ('by ID') but says nothing about include_functions or include_http_headers. These two optional booleans could alter the response, and without explanation the agent must guess.
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 the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('JS fingerprint'), and key scope ('by ID'), making it a singular lookup. It is distinct from siblings like get_jsfingerprint_source or get_js_fingerprints (plural), though it does not explicitly call out those 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling fingerprint tools (e.g., get_jsfingerprint_source, search_js_fingerprint_by_hash), the description does not explain that this is for fetching a full fingerprint object by its ID, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallbacks.
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.