get_jsfingerprint_bundle_statsGet JS fingerprint bundle statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent of the safe, read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what is counted, aggregation details, or any filtering effects. It merely restates the tool's name.
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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though it still functions as a clear one-line summary.
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 tool has a simple schema with optional date parameters, and an output schema exists. Despite this, the description does not explain what 'bundle statistics' are, how they are computed, or how the date range affects results. The agent is left with an ambiguous mental model of the tool's behavior.
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 input schema has two parameters (from_date, to_date) but no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention these parameters or explain their purpose, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. The description should have noted that the tool returns stats for a date range.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('JS fingerprint bundle statistics'), which matches the tool name and conveys the basic function. However, it does not specify what 'bundle statistics' includes or how this differs from sibling stats tools like get_jsfingerprint_library_stats, leaving some ambiguity.
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 compared to the many sibling statistics tools. It does not mention that it is for bundle-specific statistics, nor does it suggest alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is entirely implicit.
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.