search_by_fuzzy_hashList scans whose page content has a similar fuzzy hash (hash_type tlsh, ssdeep or sdhash; the value comes from a scan result), each with URL, title and time; paginated. Useful for finding near-identical copies of a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| hash_type | Yes | ||
| hash_value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hash_type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "tlsh",
+ "ssdeep",
+ "sdhash"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated and each result includes URL, title, and time. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or similarity thresholds.
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 that packs in purpose, inputs, output fields, and pagination without filler. The semicolon-heavy structure is dense but still readable and every clause contributes.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to fully explain return values. It covers the essential purpose, input provenance, pagination, and result shape well enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around similarity semantics and explicit sibling selection.
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 carries a larger burden. It meaningfully explains hash_type options and that hash_value comes from a scan result, but it leaves the page and limit parameters unaddressed beyond their schema defaults. The hash_type values are also already visible in the enum.
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 specific verb and resource: 'List scans whose page content has a similar fuzzy hash.' It also says what each result includes and that results are paginated. The 'page content' scope implicitly separates it from the many JS-fingerprint fuzzy-hash siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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?
It gives a clear use case: finding near-identical copies of a page. It also notes that the hash value should come from a scan result, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not say when not to use this tool or name sibling tools to prefer in other situations.
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.