search_ai_high_riskSearch AI high-risk scans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_confidence | No | ||
| min_risk_score | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, but the description adds no additional context about what 'high-risk' means, how the search operates, or what limits or thresholds apply. With annotations present, the description still fails to provide any behavioral nuance beyond the literal 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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no actionable information, making it insufficient for guiding an agent despite its brevity.
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 three parameters, an output schema, and belongs to a large family of search tools, the description lacks necessary context about search criteria, threshold interpretation, or its relationship to other AI-related search tools. It is not complete enough for correct invocation.
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 includes three parameters (limit, min_confidence, min_risk_score) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention any of these parameters or explain their semantics, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and valid values.
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 'Search AI high-risk scans' essentially restates the tool name with the word 'scans' appended. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'AI high-risk scan' or how this tool differs from similar siblings like search_ai_classification or search_analyzer_high_risk.
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 such as search_ai_classification or search_analyzer_high_risk. No context is given about the intended use case, prerequisites, or filtering scenarios.
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.