get_jsfingerprint_similarFind similar JS fingerprints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| threshold | No | ||
| fingerprint_id | Yes | ||
| exclude_same_scan | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how similarity is computed, whether results are paginated, or the effect of the threshold parameter. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also fails to enrich the agent's understanding.
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 sentence, which is superficially concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary operational details, making it more of a tautological placeholder than a genuinely concise explanation. True conciseness would convey key information efficiently, which this does not.
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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), a single sentence is grossly insufficient. The description does not explain expected inputs, output structure, or how it relates to the broader API. It fails to provide the contextual groundwork needed for correct invocation, especially without any parameter descriptions.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (limit, offset, threshold, fingerprint_id, exclude_same_scan). While the schema provides parameter names and types, the description adds no meaning—for instance, it does not clarify what 'threshold' controls or how 'exclude_same_scan' affects results. This leaves the agent without essential operational detail.
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 'Find similar JS fingerprints' clearly states the action (find) and resource (JS fingerprints), giving a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from many siblings with similar names like search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hash or search_js_fingerprinter2_similar, so it lacks the specificity to stand out.
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. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions. With numerous related search tools available, this lack of usage direction leaves the agent uncertain about the appropriate scenario for this tool.
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.