run_js_differential_analysisRun JS differential analysis for a scan_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | ||
| min_confidence | No | ||
| include_known_libraries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries no additional burden for safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the action name—nothing about output structure, side effects, or parameter effects. It restates the tool name rather than enriching it.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and target. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices meaningful content, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools in the same domain, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the analysis, its relationship to other tools, or what happens when the function is invoked. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help a user understand when to invoke it.
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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions scan_id, providing minimal context that the analysis is per-scan. It does not explain min_confidence or include_known_libraries, their defaults, or how they affect the analysis.
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 uses a specific verb (Run) and resource (JS differential analysis) and identifies the input (scan_id). It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also operate on JS fingerprints or scans, nor does it explain what 'differential analysis' entails.
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 the many related search_js_* and get_js* tools. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether a scan must be completed) and no alternative tool names for comparison.
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.